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 9th August 2017, 03:12 PM   #361
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by sonofthor View Post
Great! Yes, I thought the same about James as well. I am hoping he does more interviews with the likes of Gad Saad, Joe Morgan, and The Rubin report, next. However, I didn't really care that much for the Stefan Molyneux interview. I thought James didn't have many chances to go into more detail about his studies at MIT. Stefan just seem to go on a rant(s) too much. But hoping we'll hear more from James in the near future.
I've seen a bit of the Peterson interview and can already guess how the dynamic will be between a shy young nerd and Stefan who really likes the sound of his own voice. I'll give that one a pass.
__________________
Kanye for president!
Eddie Dane 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 9th August 2017, 03:13 PM   #362
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Have we arrived at an ideal gender distribution, yet?

I've seen 60/40 and 55/45 tossed around by a few folks.

Is this the "correct" split? Why or why not?

Yes, I'm being serious. If you don't know what you're aiming for, how do you know when you've arrived?
Because you look at the situation and day there are no obvious barriers and I can't think of anything else to try. I guess this is the best we can do.

This argument is errant nonsense and the antithesis of the ethos of science. Try. Try and fail. Try again. Keep trying.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:13 PM   #363
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No I read that part. It was mostly repetition of the averages nonsense and he explicitly said he didn't advocate social engineering to implement changes which kind of negated the very few non specific and largely unsupported suggestions he made based on his broad stereotyping.

I thought I had missed something substantial. Seems I didn't. Resume business as usual.
So then, him making suggestions to specifically address a problem many here accuse him of ignoring doesn't count because it's not the suggestions _you_ would've made?

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
The evidence for the bias is the gender gap. And the gender gap is evidence that there is a bias. It's simple logic really.
You've repeated the same thing twice, so it actually is not circular.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 03:14 PM   #364
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Because you look at the situation and day there are no obvious barriers and I can't think of anything else to try. I guess this is the best we can do.

This argument is errant nonsense and the antithesis of the ethos of science. Try. Try and fail. Try again. Keep trying.
If you keep failing, in science you eventually learn that you're working on a non-existent problem.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 03:14 PM   #365
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,799
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
...screed against diversity...
LOL. Do you write for MSNBC?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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 9th August 2017, 03:17 PM   #366
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Why should I accept the premise that women are kept out of STEM because they don't see it as a potential job opportunity? Have you considered the possibility that they just aren't interested for other reasons? Have you considered that maybe males don't see it as a job opportunity, due to affirmative action?

Also yes I am. That's what I said. But I'm willing to say it probably also isn't exactly 50:50. Maybe it's a 40:60 split in which direction is "optimal". But the whole point is we don't know what is optimal and any policy to enact change is unjustified until it is shown that the change is in the right direction, AND worth the cost of said policy.
You don't have to accept anything. But the tech firms are saying they can't find enough talent so in that case it behooves them to ignore you and actually try to create more people interested in stem by targeting underrepresented groups.

It's not rocket science. They don't have to convince laggards like you that women can do engineering. And they don't have to justify themselves to them either.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:17 PM   #367
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Because you look at the situation and day there are no obvious barriers and I can't think of anything else to try. I guess this is the best we can do.

This argument is errant nonsense and the antithesis of the ethos of science. Try. Try and fail. Try again. Keep trying.
Diversity initiatives are not new and untested. Science also says maybe pick some other variables to change when the current one isn't getting the results expected.

Which also goes back to: what is the hypothesis, exactly (the supposed ideal distribution in a given field of work).

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
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 9th August 2017, 03:22 PM   #368
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Once again I think you're not reasoning this properly. Not only because there is no such thing as the "right" raio, but because if we're talking about the "natural" balance of the genders in a given field, it's an impossible task to determine. At best you could say, if there's no discrimination and no strong social pressure to exclude one group from the career, then whatever ratio we get is "right". So in fact the one we arrived at by accident is MORE likely to be the right one.
No it's you guys who are arguing the current ratio doesn't need to change as far as I can tell. So yes the status quo needs to be justified as much as any other. Otherwise you have no reason to object to any effort to change it.

You seem to assume there is no discrimination or strong social pressure to achieve the current position. That seems unjustifiable in the absence of a justification for the current 4:1 ratio.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:25 PM   #369
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
He really isn't. There's no way to make one mean the other unless you have an agenda to support. He's not blaming the employees in any way shape or form, and the only to argue that he is is to appeal to words that aren't there but that you can secretly discern.



So it's solving discrimination with more discrimination. Nothing hypocritical there. Nope.

No, the point should be to stop discrimination and change social attitudes towards women and minorities, wait a generation or two for the changes to take full hold, and problem solved. Whatever you get, that's it.



I think we all agree that discrimination of that sort is bad. The disagreement is how to detect and solve it.



And how do you know this?
No the point is 'stop discrimination and wait two generations' doesn't work because it doesnt address many of the problems and it doesn't get more women into stem now when companies are crying out for more talent.

I don't like giving minorities preference any more than you but it seems to be one solution that actually works.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:29 PM   #370
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So then, him making suggestions to specifically address a problem many here accuse him of ignoring doesn't count because it's not the suggestions _you_ would've made?



You've repeated the same thing twice, so it actually is not circular.
He didn't make suggestions that addresses the problems. He invented new problems. Made some vague suggestions of how to address them then said not to actually do anything to implement them anyway. There's zero evidence that anything he said addressed the issue of underrepresented of women in Google.

Incidentally thanks for actually engaging in this topic in a fairly sensible way ... It's fairly rare here
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:31 PM   #371
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No the point is 'stop discrimination and wait two generations' doesn't work because it doesnt address many of the problems and it doesn't get more women into stem now when companies are crying out for more talent.

I don't like giving minorities preference any more than you but it seems to be one solution that actually works.
Diversity initiatives have ended employment disparities?

60 women are going to sue Google, should their case be tossed out because hey look, Google had a diversity program.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
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 9th August 2017, 03:32 PM   #372
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I can't tell you how many trans folks I know cite physiological differences in male vs. female brains as part of their validation.

Is this a thing? Is this not a thing?
I think it's a thing.

I just don't think his policy critiques/recommendations particularly follow from the science. If I remember correctly, the authors of The Bell Curve recommended that greater educational resources be directed towards populations that score lower on intelligence tests--that seems like a fair recommendation in light of the genetic lottery, setting aside whether they got the science right.

Damore recommends shutting down similar efforts on Google's part to encourage women and minorities to enter the field, on the grounds that these practices are "unfair, divisive, and bad for business", while also invoking the "50%" strawman. The first claim I reject because it fails to consider that there's nothing especially fair about a meritocracy in the first place, and the other two are empirical, but he has offered no support for them. I frankly find it a little absurd to worry about the divisiveness of a coding bootcamp for girls when women in the field can get hounded out of an engineering job with a public face simply for being women.
mumblethrax 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 9th August 2017, 03:38 PM   #373
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If you keep failing, in science you eventually learn that you're working on a non-existent problem.
Yes. We are not at that point yet. We haven't kept failing. We've tried and made some inroads. And people are whining that we shouldn't try any more.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. If we have tried everything and nothing works we can say it's just the way it is. So far we haven't tried even half of the things.

I wish you would address this. What makes you think that where we are now is about right and that efforts to change are wasted?

Or is it a purely ideological objection that efforts to encourage group A might disadvantage group b?

If it's the latter do you weigh in that given the current ratios efforts to help group A might help three or two or 1.5 people to every one disadvantaged in group b?
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:41 PM   #374
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I think it's a thing.

I just don't think his policy critiques/recommendations particularly follow from the science. If I remember correctly, the authors of The Bell Curve recommended that greater educational resources be directed towards populations that score lower on intelligence tests--that seems like a fair recommendation in light of the genetic lottery, setting aside whether they got the science right.

Damore recommends shutting down similar efforts on Google's part to encourage women and minorities to enter the field, on the grounds that these practices are "unfair, divisive, and bad for business", while also invoking the "50%" strawman. The first claim I reject because it fails to consider that there's nothing especially fair about a meritocracy in the first place, and the other two are empirical, but he has offered no support for them. I frankly find it a little absurd to worry about the divisiveness of a coding bootcamp for girls when women in the field can get hounded out of an engineering job with a public face simply for being women.
I'm not sure that I like the mediocrity of greater resources going to those that require more of them to reach the same result.

Then again I'm a nerd who's school district shuttered their accelerated program the year I finally qualified and here I am with 6 figures of student loan debt, 2 part-time jobs mixed with day labor, and a rented house which currently has 4 inches of standing water and stool in the basement.

My perspective on things might be a little unique, though.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
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 9th August 2017, 03:41 PM   #375
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No it's you guys who are arguing the current ratio doesn't need to change as far as I can tell.
Even after the numerous times where I've explained that there is no "correct" ratio?

Quote:
So yes the status quo needs to be justified as much as any other. Otherwise you have no reason to object to any effort to change it.
It's the other way around: the change needs to be justified; otherwise there's no reason for the change. Why would you seek to undo the statu quo without reason? Whatever your answer is will be a reason.

Quote:
You seem to assume there is no discrimination or strong social pressure to achieve the current position.
I never said or implied that. That is your bias colouring every single one of my posts to mean something different.

Quote:
That seems unjustifiable in the absence of a justification for the current 4:1 ratio.
So you, in fact, cannot see a reason other than discrimination or social pressure for the difference. All my posts to you have been for naught. You simply do not accept the large differences between the sexes.

Quote:
There's zero evidence that anything he said addressed the issue of underrepresented of women in Google.
In one breath you declare that discrimination and social pressure accounts for the difference -- without evidence; and in the other you decry someone else's preceived unevidenced claim.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 03:43 PM   #376
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If we have tried everything and nothing works we can say it's just the way it is. So far we haven't tried even half of the things.
Earlier you said you had no clue how to solve the perceived problem. Now you claim that there are solutions and that there are at least as many as have been tried already. That doesn't seem consistent.

Quote:
What makes you think that where we are now is about right and that efforts to change are wasted?
I've addressed this already multiple times today. There is no "right" ratio. Justify the change, and we'll talk.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 03:46 PM   #377
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I think it's a thing.

I just don't think his policy critiques/recommendations particularly follow from the science. If I remember correctly, the authors of The Bell Curve recommended that greater educational resources be directed towards populations that score lower on intelligence tests--that seems like a fair recommendation in light of the genetic lottery, setting aside whether they got the science right.

Damore recommends shutting down similar efforts on Google's part to encourage women and minorities to enter the field, on the grounds that these practices are "unfair, divisive, and bad for business", while also invoking the "50%" strawman. The first claim I reject because it fails to consider that there's nothing especially fair about a meritocracy in the first place, and the other two are empirical, but he has offered no support for them. I frankly find it a little absurd to worry about the divisiveness of a coding bootcamp for girls when women in the field can get hounded out of an engineering job with a public face simply for being women.
The last part is what I don't really get. A coding workshop for girls doesn't disadvantage the current male coders. The only negative impact on future male coders is that they have increased competition for places. But that's what the industry wants and it's hardly supporting of the averages thesis of girls who take these courses are better qualified than men.

So I'm struggling to see what the actual objection is.

The only part I would add is that there should be schemes for disadvantaged males too. And I believe there are.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 03:48 PM   #378
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,211
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I've seen a bit of the Peterson interview and can already guess how the dynamic will be between a shy young nerd and Stefan who really likes the sound of his own voice. I'll give that one a pass.
Right. Peterson also has some expertise on the subject whereas Molyneaux is merely a political commentator, who whether you like it or not has misrepresented science before (climate change from what I'm aware of). Peterson was similarly the victim of a hate mob and dishonest journalism just 10 months ago, so it's an interesting fit.

Last edited by pharphis; 9th August 2017 at 03:55 PM.
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 9th August 2017, 03:53 PM   #379
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I'm not sure that I like the mediocrity of greater resources going to those that require more of them to reach the same result.
This is another unsupported contention. How does this lead to mediocrity? At worst, it's somewhat more expensive than a blind distribution (which is itself strictly hypothetical in the US).

The reality is that most of us are mediocre, and this doesn't threaten truly exceptional people in any way. It just avoids situations where prestigious jobs are distributed along socioeconomic divisions.
mumblethrax 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 9th August 2017, 03:53 PM   #380
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,211
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
You don't have to accept anything. But the tech firms are saying they can't find enough talent so in that case it behooves them to ignore you and actually try to create more people interested in stem by targeting underrepresented groups.

It's not rocket science. They don't have to convince laggards like you that women can do engineering. And they don't have to justify themselves to them either.
I could just as easily argue that there is already a population more interested in STEM fields already, so why not tap into this group which is more likely to show interest? Why focus on those who MAY NOT show as much interest or nearly as much interest as the boys?

Here's an easier example to understand because it has less, though still something to do with brain differences: If you want to increase the size of your military, do you think efforts put into recruiting men or women are more likely to lead to a greater number (number, not ratio) of potential recruits?

The answer is pretty obvious, I think
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 9th August 2017, 03:55 PM   #381
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Even after the numerous times where I've explained that there is no "correct" ratio?



It's the other way around: the change needs to be justified; otherwise there's no reason for the change. Why would you seek to undo the statu quo without reason? Whatever your answer is will be a reason.



I never said or implied that. That is your bias colouring every single one of my posts to mean something different.



So you, in fact, cannot see a reason other than discrimination or social pressure for the difference. All my posts to you have been for naught. You simply do not accept the large differences between the sexes.



In one breath you declare that discrimination and social pressure accounts for the difference -- without evidence; and in the other you decry someone else's preceived unevidenced claim.
No again I accept that there may be factors that cause a difference. But I have no reason to believe that they should account for such a great difference. So I propose that we try to close the gap. An experiment if you will.

You are arguing against this. I think you should give a better reason than you currently have.

The problem with your posts so far is that they haven't actually shown a large difference between the sexes. Nobody has. What we have are some average differences which it is asserted explain the outcome differences and justify them.

Now either efforts to overcome them will succeed or come to naught. Either way we will deal with the outcome. What benefit is gained by not trying?
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 04:01 PM   #382
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I could just as easily argue that there is already a population more interested in STEM fields already, so why not tap into this group which is more likely to show interest? Why focus on those who MAY NOT show as much interest or nearly as much interest as the boys?

Here's an easier example to understand because it has less, though still something to do with brain differences: If you want to increase the size of your military, do you think efforts put into recruiting men or women are more likely to lead to a greater number (number, not ratio) of potential recruits?

The answer is pretty obvious, I think
I think it is fairly obvious but I'll entertain you. The group already interested is already applying. That's pretty much a given.

Now look at the segments not applying....

For the military that might be people with a brain

For stem a big group is girls
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 04:05 PM   #383
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Yes. We are not at that point yet. We haven't kept failing. We've tried and made some inroads.
Sure, but not through diversity training. It doesn't work. And Google's diversity programs aren't having much effect either.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 04:05 PM   #384
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Earlier you said you had no clue how to solve the perceived problem. Now you claim that there are solutions and that there are at least as many as have been tried already. That doesn't seem consistent.



I've addressed this already multiple times today. There is no "right" ratio. Justify the change, and we'll talk.
Sorry I don't remember saying I have no clue how to solve the problem but even so saying I don't know the answer is not the same as saying I'm not aware of any potential solutions. I'd really appreciate you acknowledging that.

The justification for changing the ratio is that stem employers report a shortage of talent.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 04:09 PM   #385
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, but not through diversity training. It doesn't work. And Google's diversity programs aren't having much effect either.
Did you expect me not not click through to the title of the paper you link to that says some do? And I wouldn't expect to see much impact in one year at Google things don't change that fast.

I can't imagine you actually thought this was compelling. Was it just for effect?
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 04:48 PM   #386
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,211
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I think it is fairly obvious but I'll entertain you. The group already interested is already applying. That's pretty much a given.

Now look at the segments not applying....

For the military that might be people with a brain

For stem a big group is girls
For the military, it's mostly men who apply. Not just "people without a brain".
So it's the same in both cases, actually.

A quick google search gave me this document (http://download.militaryonesource.mi...ics-Report.pdf) which lists funnily enough a 19:81 gender gap. Oh boy, that looks familiar. I didn't know the numbers in advance but figured it would be worth digging them up.

The question you didn't answer remains: What will result in more military personnel gained? An initiative to encourage more men to join or more women? What do you think?
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 9th August 2017, 05:03 PM   #387
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,982
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Why are you so certain that this bias exists?
Because it has been directly observed under controlled conditions (Example).

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
It should be obvious. What if the NBA's draft process, for example, was supplemented by diversity initiatives - do you think it would increase the risk of drafting substandard players?
Why would it?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 9th August 2017, 05:12 PM   #388
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,521
Because there is a relative lack of top notch players of European and Asian ancestry in the NCAA pool.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 9th August 2017, 05:14 PM   #389
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,982
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
He really isn't. There's no way to make one mean the other unless you have an agenda to support. He's not blaming the employees in any way shape or form, and the only to argue that he is is to appeal to words that aren't there but that you can secretly discern.
It is a logically inescapable implication. If diversity initiatives are detrimental because they infect the company with substandard workers, then the workers hired as a result of (or with the help of) those initiatives are an inseparable part of the problem and their presence would continue to be a detriment to the company, even if the initiatives themselves are canceled. If that's not true, then the initiatives aren't actually detrimental after all. It can't be both ways.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So it's solving discrimination with more discrimination.
Incorrect; again, the point is not to "solve" discrimination, but to compensate for it. The causes of discrimination are societal, they can't be "solved" by a company's hiring philosophy.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, the point should be to stop discrimination and change social attitudes towards women and minorities, wait a generation or two for the changes to take full hold, and problem solved. Whatever you get, that's it.
That is what you think; obviously Google disagrees. As it stands Google can't "change social attitudes toward women and minorities" even if it wanted to. The best it can do is compensate.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 9th August 2017, 05:16 PM   #390
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,982
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Because there is a relative lack of top notch players of European and Asian ancestry in the NCAA pool.
Why do you think that is?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 9th August 2017, 05:16 PM   #391
sonofthor
Scholar
 
sonofthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
I'm listening to the Jordan Peterson right now. Nothing too exciting too far. The current part I am listening to is mostly Peterson speaking about the psychological differences between men and women. (A taboo topic, I know!)

I'm surprised at how young James Damore seems. And it is interested to see how he was suddenly thrown into this whole kefluffle just for daring to question the lockstep ideology of the progressive left. I no longer think it is likely at all that he was trying to quit or cause a stir.

This whole affair really shows the dogmatism and fundamentalism of politically correct left in the US. I think we may be starting a preference cascade.
Yep! What worried me the most was the fact that he was forced to attend a "diversity" class were the google employees were "openly" figure out ways to discriminate against "certain" types of people...in other words...racism! He was fired because of exposing google's discriminatory hiring polices. And to some here, that say he was fired because of his poor performances, he was promoted TWICE and according to James he scored a five start rating on his last evaluation. Google liked him at first. But since his expose, he was fired. I think James has a case against goolag and I really wins!
__________________
"The biggest problem with the computer sits too often between the chair and the monitor."
sonofthor 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 9th August 2017, 05:32 PM   #392
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,521
Google diversity memo

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Why do you think that is?
Presumably some combination of cultural factors and natural talent. Does it matter?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 9th August 2017, 05:38 PM   #393
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No again I accept that there may be factors that cause a difference. But I have no reason to believe that they should account for such a great difference.
And no reason to think otherwise. Why do you favour one conclusion over the other?

Quote:
So I propose that we try to close the gap. An experiment if you will.
Without reason? That sounds irrational, if you pardon me.

Quote:
You are arguing against this. I think you should give a better reason than you currently have.
I'm not the one making the claim, here.

Quote:
The problem with your posts so far is that they haven't actually shown a large difference between the sexes. Nobody has.
Do you deny that men have on average 50% more upper body strength? That they weigh quite a big more and are stronger even at the same weight? That we have different brain structures and chemical compositions including hormones like testosterone which is highly associated with aggressiveness, risk-taking and ambition?

Quote:
Now either efforts to overcome them will succeed or come to naught. Either way we will deal with the outcome. What benefit is gained by not trying?
Not expending energy on something unnecessary.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 05:40 PM   #394
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Sorry I don't remember saying I have no clue how to solve the problem but even so saying I don't know the answer is not the same as saying I'm not aware of any potential solutions. I'd really appreciate you acknowledging that.
It's hard for me to acknolwedge something until you give me something to acknowledge. What are these solutions? Please separate them into those we tried and those we've yet to try, so as to support your assertion that we haven't tried half of them yet.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 05:42 PM   #395
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It is a logically inescapable implication. If diversity initiatives are detrimental because they infect the company with substandard workers, then the workers hired as a result of (or with the help of) those initiatives are an inseparable part of the problem and their presence would continue to be a detriment to the company, even if the initiatives themselves are canceled. If that's not true, then the initiatives aren't actually detrimental after all. It can't be both ways.
Except that this still doesn't mean the workers are to blame.

Quote:
Incorrect; again, the point is not to "solve" discrimination, but to compensate for it.
Then it is idiotic and wrong. It's like compensating for murder by making more babies rather than stopping the murders.

Quote:
That is what you think; obviously Google disagrees.
What do you think?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 9th August 2017, 05:51 PM   #396
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,982
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Presumably some combination of cultural factors and natural talent. Does it matter?
I don't know, does it? You need to explain what makes the situations analogous (i.e., why Google recruiting more women would be like the NCAA recruiting more Asians).
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 9th August 2017, 05:54 PM   #397
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Did you expect me not not click through to the title of the paper you link to that says some do? And I wouldn't expect to see much impact in one year at Google things don't change that fast.

I can't imagine you actually thought this was compelling. Was it just for effect?
I expected you to note that "diversity training" is a specific type of program, that the paper showed that type doesn't work, and that my claim was about diversity training specifically.

So congratulations, you proved my expectations wrong.
__________________
"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 9th August 2017, 05:59 PM   #398
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You need to explain what makes the situations analogous.
The general case is as follows.

1) Elite institution (e.g. Golden Gate Warriors, Google) has a limited pool of top-level talent to pick from (e.g. NCAA basketball stars, elite university comp sci grads)

2) Said talent pool does not reflect the general population on some common demographic measures (e.g. sex, gender, ancestry)

3) Correcting for demographics requires looking outside of the usual pool of highest achievers in the relevant field
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 9th August 2017 at 06:02 PM.
d4m10n 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 9th August 2017, 06:32 PM   #399
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,359
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The general case is as follows.

1) Elite institution (e.g. Golden Gate Warriors, Google) has a limited pool of top-level talent to pick from (e.g. NCAA basketball stars, elite university comp sci grads)

2) Said talent pool does not reflect the general population on some common demographic measures (e.g. sex, gender, ancestry)

3) Correcting for demographics requires looking outside of the usual pool of highest achievers in the relevant field
Problem. What makes you think Google has any way to identify who is top and who isn't?
BobTheCoward 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 9th August 2017, 06:35 PM   #400
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,982
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Except that this still doesn't mean the workers are to blame.
Where does the matter of "blame" even enter the discussion? It doesn't have to be their "fault", they're objectively still a problem.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Then it is idiotic and wrong. It's like compensating for murder by making more babies rather than stopping the murders.
It's funny you mention that. Many animals - including, historically, humans - do maintain a high birth rate or large families in order to compensate for child mortality. But never mind; in this case it's more like compensating for a high burglary rate in your neighborhood by buying a lock or keeping your money in a bank instead of at home. Police can go out and catch the thieves (and murderers); you the citizen and prospective victim though cannot. You can only do what is within your power - and unfortunately, that means all you can do personally is make an effort to reduce your own likelihood of being a victim. When enough people in the neighborhood have done taken these measures individually, you expect the burglary rate to go down. To wit: if the societal problem is women being perceived as less-fit in whatever way for STEM work (whether by themselves, others, or both), tech companies can help counter this perception by hiring more women and demonstrating that the company continues to function as intended with a higher percentage of female workforce. When enough companies do this, the perception declines.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What do you think?
I agree with Google. I think that at this point there's no reason to expect the hiring of more women and minorities will ever actually be detrimental to Google's production or the quality of its products; further, there certainly seems to be marketing and PR benefits from taking a progressive position on a gender equality issue, that can translate into financial benefits. Indeed, Google can only benefit from such proactive initiatives as the company is currently under investigation by the US Department of Labor, which contends it has found evidence that Google has paid women lower salaries than men in the same positions with like qualifications.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 11:51 PM.
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.