ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th August 2017, 02:28 AM   #721
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,848
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I've considered all your 'evidence' and arguments so far.
I think you've demonstrated your unwillingness to do so more than once. You're not fooling anybody.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 02:38 AM   #722
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Okay.

Here's my view:

Discrimination is a problem. As such, we should attempt to get rid of it wherever we see it. Sometimes there are even statistical tools that we can use to find discrimination even when we can't track down the specific cases, and this can lead us to realise that policy changes are necessary. The example of blind auditions for orchestras is a well known example of how you don't necessarily even have to be conscious of discrimination for it to exist, or to find a way to deal with it that is fair.
Fine, but there can be causes that don't amount to discrimination. For example the lack of female role models in tech for women results from the low participation of women in tech. Were there more women in tech there would be more role models and more women entering tech. I don't think this is discrimination or bias at work but it does create a 'natural' equilibrium in the system that does not necessarily reflect women's inate desire or competency to enter tech fields.

Quote:
On the other hand, biological differences do exist as well. So we shouldn't necessarily assume that equality of opportunity will lead to equality of outcome, or that equality of outcome is the goal we want to achieve. If people do want different things from life, trying to enforce equality of outcome will mean trying to enforce a situation in which people are deterred from the things that they actually want.
No we shouldn't assume that. But nor should we use biological differences to explain away inequality of outcome absent data and evidence that shows that to be the case.

Equality of opportunity may not simply translate to 'absence of discrimination'.

On a pragmatic level there may simply be a need to force some greater equality of outcome in order to nudge the system out of the equilibrium it is currently in.

Quote:
Given that, the best approach is to look for discrimination and try to make corrections to violations of equality of opportunity when we can find them.
The best approach I would say is to find the factors that act as barriers to women entering tech and remove them where possible unless there is good reason not to. This will include eliminating discrimination but also promoting tech amongst women and actively trying to engage them. One of the biggest things that makes a difference apparently to young girls is when a trusted adult or mentor suggests that they enter a tech field. Merely suggesting that they could do it apparently makes a significant difference to whether they do do it.

Quote:
The scope for doing so will be different from different vantage points. For instance, google isn't able to make changes to the actions of teachers in primary school education. They are able to, for instance, attempt to implement some sort of blinding to gender and race in their hiring practices.
No lots of companies, including Google I would presume, are actually going out and making a difference in primary schools and the like. Because its hard to make a big difference at the end of the sausage machine. Google can also make a difference to the social and cultural messages which girls receive. By hiring more women they can show that women can do it just as well as men, by promoting diversity they can send out the right messages to girls thinking about tech but not sure about it, and ultimately by removing 'bad apples' as they see it from Google they also give an important message.

Quote:
If there are ways in which the corporate culture at google is unwelcoming to particular groups (women, perhaps, or people with particular cultural backgrounds), then that should be looked at. Unless those aspects of the corporate culture are related to the efficient running of the company (and can't be replaced with equally efficient alternatives), those things should be changed. That's the sort of thing that google can do.
And they can also look at what else they can do to help.

Quote:
Finally, I'd like to give my view of google's response to the memo: I think any company gets value from the honest opinions of their employees, and that seems to be exactly what they asked of Damore. He put some time into a reasonable and potentially useful response. That should be rewarded, even if it's not considered something to be acted upon. There's no evidence that I see that Damore's views in any way damaged the quality of his work, and google hasn't claimed that they did. So I think his being fired was a bad decision, both from the perspective of fairness and from the perspective of google's developing an efficient and useful culture within their company.
I don't know Damore and his background or his history or performance or anything. On the face of it I think sacking him seems harsh. I don't think what he did was a reasonable or potentially useful response but I can't vouch for his intentions. My take on it was the kind of thing I see from a certain kind of person with a certain viewpoint who likes to moan about such things.
I don't think his memo was in anyway what I would call reasonable but then perhaps that kind of thing is fine in Google and maybe it is normal there. I really don't know.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 02:52 AM   #723
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,848
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Fine, but there can be causes that don't amount to discrimination. For example the lack of female role models in tech for women results from the low participation of women in tech. Were there more women in tech there would be more role models and more women entering tech.
Speaking of evidence and arguments, can you support the above at all? Or is that just speculation?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:05 AM   #724
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Speaking of evidence and arguments, can you support the above at all? Or is that just speculation?
Well even proposing the hypothesis generates a rather hostile range of responses, I'm not sure how many attempts have even been made to control for that variable (or if it is feasibly possible economically or within ethical scientific boundaries).

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 16th August 2017 at 04:07 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:14 AM   #725
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think you've demonstrated your unwillingness to do so more than once. You're not fooling anybody.
Its not me who repeated refuses to answer a straightforward question.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:19 AM   #726
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Speaking of evidence and arguments, can you support the above at all? Or is that just speculation?
Sure.

https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/uplo...le_like_me.pdf

Quote:
More than half of girls say that hairdressing is what
girls are interested in (57%), while they veer away
from engineering because of a lack of interest (51%)
and lack of female role models (60%). There is also a
perception that not many girls or women do this kind
of job (47%), and that they dont know enough about
it (43%).
By contrast, one in three thinks that
hairdressing is popular because its all girls know about
(35%), and because they know others who do it (32%).
Almost half of girls (53%) think science/engineering is
too hard or complicated, 35% say it would be difficult
to get a job of this kind
, and 22% would be put off by
the working environment.
Three in ten girls (30%) think that worries about
sexism in the workplace put girls off a career in science
or engineering.
43% of girls said they were put off science and
engineering careers because they did not know
enough about the kind of careers available. 60% said
they also were put off by a lack of female role models.

Some 43% think that girls opt for hairdressing because
some jobs are more for girls, and 27% feel that
engineering loses out because some jobs are more
for boys.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:42 AM   #727
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
So how does Google's diversity training address any of the above, Archie?

Spoiler alert: it doesn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:50 AM   #728
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So how does Google's diversity training address any of the above, Archie?

Spoiler alert: it doesn't.
Where did I say it did?

The discussion was about whether there can be things other than discrimination or biology which affect career choice outcomes. I gave an example of such a thing and provided some evidence for it.

This is on top of my still unaddressed point from earlier about girls schools.

If you want a general point about diversity training then it helps raise awareness of unconscious biases that may result in some of the points raised in that survey and which filter through to society in general. Whether Googles specific efforts make a difference I can't say. You would have to ask the people who volunteer to attend the sessions if they find them useful.

Some of the reporting of the content is quite ridiculous incidentally in their clear bias. For example spinning an instruction not to repeat what people say in the room outside as some kind of hideous imposition with nefarious motives rather than simply respecting the privacy of people on the room and an encouragement to share openly.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

Last edited by Archie Gemmill Goal; 16th August 2017 at 04:59 AM.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:04 AM   #729
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,848
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Its not me who repeated refuses to answer a straightforward question.
As I said earlier I've answered your questions multiple times and you've refused to acknowledge them.

You agree that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, but refuse to conclude that it may lead them to different decisions, including career choices. How does that work?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:10 AM   #730
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,848
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The middle bolded part has nothing to do with your argument.

As to the rest, all that data comes from women advocacy organisations which already makes me wary of their conclusions. But, assuming their numbers are correct, boy are people stupid. I've never needed a role-model to make my own decisions.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:10 AM   #731
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If you want a general point about diversity training then it helps raise awareness of unconscious biases that may result in some of the points raised in that survey and which filter through to society in general. Whether Googles specific efforts make a difference I can't say. You would have to ask the people who volunteer to attend the sessions if they find them useful.
You are wrong. Diversity training achieves none of these goals. It doesn't work. I've linked to studies earlier in the thread. Intent doesn't guarantee results.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:32 AM   #732
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But, assuming their numbers are correct, boy are people stupid.
More specifically, children are stupid, even more stupid than adults.

I remember when I was a kid, about half my class wanted to be marine biologists. Probably because of seeing some cool ocean documentaries. Of course, nothing even remotely resembling that happened. I'm not sure if even one person from that class became a marine biologist. The point being, what kids say about what they want to do has little relevance to what they end up doing.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 07:57 AM   #733
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,743
On the other hand, my career choice was heavily influenced by peers who role modeled success in that field.

Ironically, it's a tech career, and two of the biggest role models in my social circle were women. One of them later left tech for nursing. The other tried project management before returning to tech.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:04 AM   #734
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
As I said earlier I've answered your questions multiple times and you've refused to acknowledge them.

You agree that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, but refuse to conclude that it may lead them to different decisions, including career choices. How does that work?
No I've repeatedly said that it may lead to differences but challenged your conclusion that it does necessarily lead to differences. It may or may not lead to differences and even if it does that doesn't negate the value of promoting women's participation in tech despite the differences.

You have yet to provide an answer for the question I posed about girls school vs comprehensive schools. If you don't have an answer that's fine. If you do have an answer I would like to hear it.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:10 AM   #735
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The middle bolded part has nothing to do with your argument.

As to the rest, all that data comes from women advocacy organisations which already makes me wary of their conclusions. But, assuming their numbers are correct, boy are people stupid. I've never needed a role-model to make my own decisions.
The Middle part may well have something to do with the argument. Girls think it's hard to get a job in tech because they don't see other girls like them getting jobs in tech. If they had more role models telling them they can do it then they would be less likely to believe it's too hard for them

Incidentally I've never heard the Girl Guides called a women's advocacy organisation that's a bit of a stretch. The data doesn't come from them anyway it comes from girls. They just conducted the survey.

If we accept the data as factual then regardless of whether you think people are stupid then it is still a fact of reality of how people choose.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:19 AM   #736
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The middle bolded part has nothing to do with your argument.

As to the rest, all that data comes from women advocacy organisations which already makes me wary of their conclusions. But, assuming their numbers are correct, boy are people stupid. I've never needed a role-model to make my own decisions.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are wrong. Diversity training achieves none of these goals. It doesn't work. I've linked to studies earlier in the thread. Intent doesn't guarantee results.
Can you point me to the specifics of what you are referring to? I know you posted a paper that said diversity training doesn't lead to more diverse management teams but I missed the part that referred to the objectives I mentioned above. It would save me a lot of effort searching if you could highlight the relevant piece.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:20 AM   #737
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,848
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No I've repeatedly said that it may lead to differences but challenged your conclusion that it does necessarily lead to differences.
That's downright idiotic. Of course differences will necessarily lead to differences. The only question is whether it would lead to differences in this specific instance, but since you have no idea if it would, there's no justification to calling the disparity a problem.

Quote:
You have yet to provide an answer for the question I posed about girls school vs comprehensive schools.
You're right. I haven't. What was the point of your question, again?

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The Middle part may well have something to do with the argument. Girls think it's hard to get a job in tech because they don't see other girls like them getting jobs in tech.
You're adding information that wasn't in the list you posted.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:24 AM   #738
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
More specifically, children are stupid, even more stupid than adults.

I remember when I was a kid, about half my class wanted to be marine biologists. Probably because of seeing some cool ocean documentaries. Of course, nothing even remotely resembling that happened. I'm not sure if even one person from that class became a marine biologist. The point being, what kids say about what they want to do has little relevance to what they end up doing.
Which is pretty much the point. Things change between point a and point b. And we would like to know why and if you happen to be in the marine biology hiring game probably want to know what you could do to get some of those kids who were keen to be marine biologists actually follow through on it.

Evidence suggests that has someone they respect told them that being a marine biologist could be a reality rather than a pipe dream they would be much more likely to actually become one.

Or we could just snipe at how stupid people are while pretending that we are immune from social influences somehow.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 09:03 AM   #739
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,627
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it was not distributed by email, at least not by Damore. And it's not just pedantic. There's a difference between making something available and pushing it at people. An email, whether in the body or as an attachment, pushes the contents at people. But that's not what Damore did.
I'm really struggling to understand what you're getting at with this. He didn't store it secretly on his harddrive or anything. At some point he shared it with colleagues, he must have sent them the content or a link to it. The memo was authored to share with other employees at Google. I don't think this is controversial.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your guess contradicts what they have said.
I think you need to help me with this, because all the communications I've read from them were pretty vague.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If Google was honest about what their values are
I'm not sure they're being dishonest, so much as you and I don't work there, we just don't have access to their company values statement. It may be on the website, though.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
... I'd have much less of an issue here. If they were upfront and said that they have this liberal ideology, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it won't fit in, then you'd have a point.

But they claim that they're open to different points of view. They claim to not discriminate on this basis. And, as it turns out, that's a bald-faced lie.
I disagree, or at least, there's nothing special about a modern company discriminating on values. If they have a posted set of company values, and he's objecting to them, I don't see any deception on their part.

On the contrary: asking a job applicant if they are in agreement with company values is part of the hiring, and onboarding/probationary process. It's likely he postponed voicing objections until he was more secure in his position. If so, the deception was on his end.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
"Social influence" is not the same thing as discrimination. Much of what Google is doing, and what Damore objected to, won't affect social influence.
I think it does, and I share the general corporate rationale for it: shifts in high profile corporate representation update the corporate culture, and also, increase the visibility of female executives in these roles, which improves cultural modelling. ie: role models showing younger women and POC that these positions are achievable.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because they don't seek status the way that men do.

Which is one of Damore's arguments.
And a different topic than whether what he did was fireworthy for insubordination/unprofessionalism/toxicity.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 09:06 AM   #740
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,627
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
no no no!

His memo was PRO-DIVERSITY. I'm getting tired of seeing this mischaracterization.

Also, it has been mentioned but it seems almost no one is familiar with, he originally provided the memo as feedback for a diversity workshop. When he didn't hear back from them, he published it for the "google skeptics" group to dismantle it. One of those people who had access to it leaked the memo. He covers this in the first 20 mins of his interview with Jordan Peterson.
I don't think it's mischaracterization. I read it, too. Just because he pats himself on the back for being pro diversity, doesn't mean he ended up writing something supportive. He's just demonstrating that he doesn't have a competent grasp of the concept, unfortunately.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 11:08 AM   #741
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm really struggling to understand what you're getting at with this.
He didn't push his views onto anyone.

Quote:
He didn't store it secretly on his harddrive or anything. At some point he shared it with colleagues, he must have sent them the content or a link to it.
Did you send me a link to your post? No. I had to go find it.

Quote:
The memo was authored to share with other employees at Google. I don't think this is controversial.
True. But the method of sharing is relevant.

Quote:
I think you need to help me with this, because all the communications I've read from them were pretty vague.
Yes, they're vague. But they are still quite clear that it's the contents of the memo (actually, only some unspecified fraction of the contents) which led to his firing.

Quote:
I disagree, or at least, there's nothing special about a modern company discriminating on values. If they have a posted set of company values, and he's objecting to them, I don't see any deception on their part.
I don't think that's what happened. In none of the criticism I've seen, including from Google employees, has anyone ever referred to any posted set of company values.

Quote:
And a different topic than whether what he did was fireworthy for insubordination/unprofessionalism/toxicity.
No, it's not different. It's directly related. If telling the truth violates your company's code of conduct, then there's something wrong with your code of conduct.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 12:30 PM   #742
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,211
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Seriously, did you get to the end of that memo and think 'hey here's a guy who is fighting the good fight for diversity?'

Honestly?
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I don't think it's mischaracterization. I read it, too. Just because he pats himself on the back for being pro diversity, doesn't mean he ended up writing something supportive. He's just demonstrating that he doesn't have a competent grasp of the concept, unfortunately.
Yes, and in fact he seems interested in diversity of more than JUST genitals.

He doesn't just pat himself on the back. He uses science to come up with alternative approaches to achieving diversity. His ideas may or may not be effective, but he clearly had innovative ideas for approaching the problem.

Is it not possible to be pro-X without following whatever party line there is for said X? This is an extremely narrow way of viewing things imo
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 02:46 PM   #743
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,757
I am betting Google is increading security at their buildings, with the President having just given a attaboy to the extreme right.....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 11:57 PM   #744
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,211
So have any of Damores detractors read the Contra Grant on Exaggerated Differences article that has been linked a few times? It really does cut through many of the main cultural arguments, and shows that the "people vs things" personality difference has more predictive power than "sexism".

It also in part addresses the ideological status of the tech industry
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 10:50 AM   #745
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,095
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
So have any of Damores detractors read the Contra Grant on Exaggerated Differences article that has been linked a few times? It really does cut through many of the main cultural arguments, and shows that the "people vs things" personality difference has more predictive power than "sexism".

It also in part addresses the ideological status of the tech industry
That's an excellent piece.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 11:32 AM   #746
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,559
That sparked me off to considering that socially-derived determinations of desirable or undesirable qualities can result in a drift of genetics* over time (scale beyond our lifetimes and hard to grapple with). So this then changes the scope of what may or may not be biological differences, whatever that may or may not imply about behavior.

* especially in the sense of gene expression/epigenetics that we are starting to tap into and which add a whole other layer of complexity to consider.

So is biology determining behavior or the opposite or both or are there so many axes at play, all in motion over time, all influencing each other in addition to their already present inertias, etc. that sticking your finger on one to change it's path is not going to lead where you think?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.