ChatterBank4 mins ago
It Seems We Are Not Allowed A "wrong" Opinion!
122 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are, incidentally, some ideas in the memo that I would endorse or even say myself. It's possible that what this mainly shows is that people get angry at stuff without reading the stuff properly.
http://
http://
//(mostly negative) publicity //
Surely ones view of this being negative or positive depends on where you sit on the matter. Anyone agreeing will be silenced by the baying minority of people who take offence on behalf of others.
Anyone with 1/2 ounce of sense knows men and women are different, for goodness sake not all men or all women are the same and it does not mean one gender is better than the other. I think some seem to forget our ROM chips programmed for survival of the fittest that still exist in us.
Surely ones view of this being negative or positive depends on where you sit on the matter. Anyone agreeing will be silenced by the baying minority of people who take offence on behalf of others.
Anyone with 1/2 ounce of sense knows men and women are different, for goodness sake not all men or all women are the same and it does not mean one gender is better than the other. I think some seem to forget our ROM chips programmed for survival of the fittest that still exist in us.
It is a well thought out memo, it covers many aspects and provides good suggestions and comparisons.
On the other hand Danielle's reply as Head of Diverdity (whatever that entails) shows he is 100% correct, right down to the sacking but.
Google have not done themselves any favours here. It should have been handled much better, they have even fallen down one of the points of bias he raised. Fools should have read his memo a couple of times before responding, but then how many right-on liberals do that?
On the other hand Danielle's reply as Head of Diverdity (whatever that entails) shows he is 100% correct, right down to the sacking but.
Google have not done themselves any favours here. It should have been handled much better, they have even fallen down one of the points of bias he raised. Fools should have read his memo a couple of times before responding, but then how many right-on liberals do that?
"Fools should have read his memo a couple of times before responding, but then how many right-on liberals do that?"
It's actually up for debate whether this is necessary. And I know that sounds horribly dismissive, but ... well, I suppose as a not-right-on-liberal type, you are obliged to read all of this before dismissing it, haha.
Anyway: in the specific case, this guy writes that " Many of [the biological differences between men and women] are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women...", and his argument essentially then goes on to claim that these factors are largely behind the gender gap in employment. But what is a "small" difference going to lead to, in a world with no other contributing factors to the gender gap? I think it's safe to say that, rather than about 50% of tech engineers being men, maybe it should be 55% or something, in an ideal world, to account for the "small" differences that he implies. But Google's computing engineers are 80% men. That is clearly *not* a "small" difference, right? So it is surely reasonable to conclude that there is some other, more significant factor at play.
Then, the reason you might not feel a need to read the rest of what he writes is that you can reasonably, from the above, conclude that the entire premise is flawed. "Small" biological differences are incredibly unlikely to be the entire driving force behind "large" disparities in gender make-up of a workforce, and as his argument seems to overlook this then that's the first question I would ask him to address before moving on to critically discussing anything else he says.
There are also a couple of factual inaccuracies: for example, the writer notes that the differences between men and women in society are "universal across human cultures", but this is not correct, and several societies exist or have existed that have a matriarchal structure. They are rare, but it kills the "universal" claim stone dead.
But in general it sometimes follows that you can very quickly evaluate the strength, or otherwise, of an argument without having to read it all the way through. This isn't a leftie liberal thing, it's just common sense. If someone starts off a scientific paper, for example, claiming that the Higgs boson is actually just an atom of Xenon and attempts to justify this by noting that "four muons weigh almost nothing so how can a Higgs boson turn into four muons and where did all the mass go?", then at that point you just stop reading because the rest is also guaranteed to be incoherent rubbish. (I have not made up this example; time was when I, and the rest of the physics community, would receive this email once a week for the better part of five years).
It's a judgement call, and I will certainly grant you that there are times when I've come to that judgement too quickly, but on the whole I think it's reasonable to assume that if a long post starts right off the bat with something that is factually wrong or leaves a glaring hole, then you want them to fix that mistake or fill that hole before wasting any further time on the rest of what they say.
It's actually up for debate whether this is necessary. And I know that sounds horribly dismissive, but ... well, I suppose as a not-right-on-liberal type, you are obliged to read all of this before dismissing it, haha.
Anyway: in the specific case, this guy writes that " Many of [the biological differences between men and women] are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women...", and his argument essentially then goes on to claim that these factors are largely behind the gender gap in employment. But what is a "small" difference going to lead to, in a world with no other contributing factors to the gender gap? I think it's safe to say that, rather than about 50% of tech engineers being men, maybe it should be 55% or something, in an ideal world, to account for the "small" differences that he implies. But Google's computing engineers are 80% men. That is clearly *not* a "small" difference, right? So it is surely reasonable to conclude that there is some other, more significant factor at play.
Then, the reason you might not feel a need to read the rest of what he writes is that you can reasonably, from the above, conclude that the entire premise is flawed. "Small" biological differences are incredibly unlikely to be the entire driving force behind "large" disparities in gender make-up of a workforce, and as his argument seems to overlook this then that's the first question I would ask him to address before moving on to critically discussing anything else he says.
There are also a couple of factual inaccuracies: for example, the writer notes that the differences between men and women in society are "universal across human cultures", but this is not correct, and several societies exist or have existed that have a matriarchal structure. They are rare, but it kills the "universal" claim stone dead.
But in general it sometimes follows that you can very quickly evaluate the strength, or otherwise, of an argument without having to read it all the way through. This isn't a leftie liberal thing, it's just common sense. If someone starts off a scientific paper, for example, claiming that the Higgs boson is actually just an atom of Xenon and attempts to justify this by noting that "four muons weigh almost nothing so how can a Higgs boson turn into four muons and where did all the mass go?", then at that point you just stop reading because the rest is also guaranteed to be incoherent rubbish. (I have not made up this example; time was when I, and the rest of the physics community, would receive this email once a week for the better part of five years).
It's a judgement call, and I will certainly grant you that there are times when I've come to that judgement too quickly, but on the whole I think it's reasonable to assume that if a long post starts right off the bat with something that is factually wrong or leaves a glaring hole, then you want them to fix that mistake or fill that hole before wasting any further time on the rest of what they say.
It's markedly shorter than the ten-page essay the guy at Google wrote, and that I am sure you read all the way through before saying that you agreed with him.
But the basic summary, if you like, is: if you judge that something is flawed from the outset then no, ymb, you don't need to read it all the way through before responding.
But the basic summary, if you like, is: if you judge that something is flawed from the outset then no, ymb, you don't need to read it all the way through before responding.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//and several societies exist or have existed that have a matriarchal structure. They are rare, but it kills the "universal" claim stone dead. //
Maybe so Jim, but said "matriarchal structures" didn't mean that the ladies were doing theplumbing, engineering or building, just the planning and politics................ohh and the washing up. (&_*)
Maybe so Jim, but said "matriarchal structures" didn't mean that the ladies were doing theplumbing, engineering or building, just the planning and politics................ohh and the washing up. (&_*)
No, 3T geeks such as yourself roll up their sleeves at conferences and have a good time - but it can get out of hand
"On the day following the party IGDA Executive Director Kate Edwards issued an apology stating "We regret that the IGDA was involved in this situation. We do not condone activities that objectify or demean women or any other group of people."
well - what was that about? - - - this
a few years ago
The event featured "at least three girls in white outfits–one was in a skimpy t-shirt one was in this weird furry get-up–dancing." Backlash over the presence of these female dancers resulted in the several people resigning in protest....
It's all here
https:/
A version features in The Good Wife - as color for one of their teevee episodes. A lap-top gets stolen at a designers' convention but it is actually left available in order to be 'stolen' - and yes the designers attention is distracted by the much awaited boozummy girls and pompoms going 'zu-zu'... and gyrating
anyway it well known the geeks go crazy if you give them a bit of red meat .....
3T you might protest - that you have never been to such a disgraceful public exhibition of ladies' bare flesh
well you should go ! you should go!
two sides to every story
"On the day following the party IGDA Executive Director Kate Edwards issued an apology stating "We regret that the IGDA was involved in this situation. We do not condone activities that objectify or demean women or any other group of people."
well - what was that about? - - - this
a few years ago
The event featured "at least three girls in white outfits–one was in a skimpy t-shirt one was in this weird furry get-up–dancing." Backlash over the presence of these female dancers resulted in the several people resigning in protest....
It's all here
https:/
A version features in The Good Wife - as color for one of their teevee episodes. A lap-top gets stolen at a designers' convention but it is actually left available in order to be 'stolen' - and yes the designers attention is distracted by the much awaited boozummy girls and pompoms going 'zu-zu'... and gyrating
anyway it well known the geeks go crazy if you give them a bit of red meat .....
3T you might protest - that you have never been to such a disgraceful public exhibition of ladies' bare flesh
well you should go ! you should go!
two sides to every story
Hmm... it is, perhaps, more reasonable to disagree with an opinion without reading it fully than it is to *agree* with said opinion despite not reading it fully. Because, after all, it can only take one flaw to render an entire argument void, but it takes everything to be pretty reasonable to believe it's sound.
In that case, the shorter form of my post is something like:
Is it reasonable to think that *small* biological differences between men and women are enough to entirely explain away a *large* difference in representation at any given job? Answer: no.
In that case, the shorter form of my post is something like:
Is it reasonable to think that *small* biological differences between men and women are enough to entirely explain away a *large* difference in representation at any given job? Answer: no.
Latest Posts
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Technology10 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.