Google Employee behind Anti-Diversity Memo Is “Exploring All Possible Legal Remedies”

M76 said:
Bull fucking shit. I've just read it. And it communicates the exact same concerns that I have, and most honest people have that looked at diversity politics objectively. Nowhere did it say that they shouldn't hire women or that women are unsuitable to work at a tech company. If you think that's what he's saying then you're misrepresenting it as well, either on purpose or due to lack of understanding of the nuances.
Click to expand...

Somebody didn't read the footnotes, lemme give you the highlights (posted in the other thread)

STR said:
From the man himself:

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

He's actually "simply stating" women are inferior at coding because biology. He doesn't have the balls to come out and say that (or stupidly thought blunting the argument would be more convincing) and couches it with "distribution" and "part" but that's dressing on a turd sandwich.

Then there's this:

"For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins"

And this:

"women spend more money than men"
Click to expand...

First quote says it all. Cut away the bullshit and it reduces to "I’m simply stating that the...abilities of men and women differ...due to biological causes"
 
Hypergreatthing said:
So a person's opinion is cause for termination? Questioning beliefs? Only management can disagree with policies?
Yeah i get it, that's how the world works. It doesn't make it right.
I don't think opinions should be grounds for termination. It should be based on work and work quality. It's already illegal to fire or hire someone based on political affiliation which is mostly opinion yet actual opinions are valid for termination?
Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to have an opinion. When one's freedom of speech is used to discriminate that person is protected from legal actions taken by the state/fed governments. They are in no way protected from the social consequences of their speech.

Google wants to be a place of equality for all people. They also want an open free environment where people can voice their opinions. In this case, the leadership at Google decided that they value the first part - a welcoming workplace for all - over a person's ability to voice their opinion.

And let's be honest. There are diplomatic ways to say what James Damore said which would not have gotten him fired (maybe, any discrimination, even if only on the surface is hard to defend and should not be supported). He instead wrote the first thing that came to mind down and sent it out. He deserves the social ramifications that such actions produce.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
You don't need to deny something that's already been discredited. There is no modern model of intelligence that can be reduced to a single axis. There isn't even a real test for intelligence. Even the IQ test is really just a test of how well you can complete IQ tests. You can practice taking them and significantly improve your score. They're long known to be culturally biased.

Like everything else he premises his argument on, the man is trying to pass pseudoscience off as objective fact.
Click to expand...
Intelligence, no, but there is plenty of research out there showing that male and female brains work differently.

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
STR said:
Somebody didn't read the footnotes, lemme give you the highlights (posted in the other thread)



First quote says it all. Cut away the bullshit and it reduces to "I’m simply stating that the...abilities of men and women differ...due to biological causes"
Click to expand...
You're interpreting what he is saying by looking at it through the lens of your own bias, i.e. putting words into his mouth.
 
Armenius said:
Glad you brought this up. He may have been wrong to say it's a biological thing, but there is no denying the data.

View attachment 32773

Instead of trying to correct the perceived issue after it's too late, we can instead focus more of our efforts into mentoring during grade school. And for god's sake, don't force any child into something they don't want to do.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I meant. But the study I read shown that there is no shift between genders, so on average women are no less intelligent than men, but the graph is much narrower, so it goes up later, and drops down much earlier.

This would be a more accurate representation of the differences imo:

male-and-female-iq-distributions.jpg
 
rehab said:
7-ish years ago, when I was interviewing for jobs; I tested this by going well and beyond logic to write the flat out cheesiest, feminism-from-a-guy, ultra-earth / pet centric, pop-culturish, trendy.. whatever interview request. I cant really describe how ridiculous it was, wrap up all the SJW topics and vomit them out on paper and that was my application letter. It was comical. I will try to locate it from my gmail. I wanted to see if I could get a call without really even mentioning my tech background, by only highlighting my sense of non-identity, or global identity...if that makes sense. I agreed with everything and disagreed with nothing. No joke they called me, interviewed me, and praised my stand out application letter. It blew my mind. I was standing up stating that I am essentially the doppleganger of nihilism or something. I will try to find it and edit this post so you can grasp this.
You couldnt pay me 250k a year to work for that company. The new meta culture is non culture, extirpate all your beliefs you formed on your own, and adopt round robin everything you come in contact with.
Click to expand...
Thread
 
Armenius said:
Intelligence, no, but there is plenty of research out there showing that male and female brains work differently.
Click to expand...

Okay. How is that relevant to computer science, and specifically CS engineering in a major tech company?

Seems to me like you're trying to move the goalposts from "women aren't good CS engineers" to "men and women have differences". Which is supposed to imply that maybe they're not good coders, but in reality proves exactly nothing.

You're interpreting what he is saying by looking at it through the lens of your own bias, i.e. putting words into his mouth.
Click to expand...

Those are literally his words. I added nothing. If anything, I took a few irrelevant words away. But why don't you tell me how he doesn't say women are inherently inferior coders. That's the base premise of his whole argument.

Women are worse coders, therefore we shouldn't waste time and energy diversifying Google because that's wasting resources recruiting inferior people.

That's is what he spent 10 pages justifying.
 
STR said:
Okay. How is that relevant to computer science?



Those are literally his words. I added nothing. If anything, I took a few irrelevant words away. But why don't you tell me how he doesn't say women are inherently inferior coders.
Click to expand...
He says women on average are inferior coders. Not any particular woman. And it is explained by the IQ curve that I just shown. And the trend is further amplified by women being discouraged from tech fields by the likes who say the entire field is misogynist.
Denying the truth won't help women. Recognizing the truth and encouraging more women to enter a tech field so more of those exceptionally bright women can fulfill their potential is the only sane and fair thing to do.

I don't know how do you expect equal representation of genders in tech while most women choose different careers?
 
M76 said:
He says women on average are inferior coders. Not any particular woman.
Click to expand...

This is nonsensical. Like, these two sentences make zero sense together. If you drop the second sentence, then you've literally just agreed with my interpretation of his premise.

And it is explained by the IQ curve that I just shown.
Click to expand...

IQ tests are not tests of ability. Specifically, not the ability to be a software engineer.
 
STR said:
Not even. Tolerance is a social contract where everyone agrees not to be a jerk to you simply because you're physically different or believe different things. Intolerance is deliberately breaking the social contract. Getting ostracized or canned for being a jerk is the termination penalty for breaking the contract.
Click to expand...
The problem with that definition, is that the contract you speak of is completely one sided. So, it's not much of a "social" contract when one side defines what views are acceptable.
 
STR said:
"I’m simply stating that the...abilities of men and women differ...due to biological causes"
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Or do you deny that? That would be literally insane.
 
MRAB54 said:
The problem with that definition, is that the contract you speak of is completely one sided. So, it's not much of a "social" contract when one side defines what views are acceptable.
Click to expand...

Sigh...one more time...

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
 
M76 said:
Well I don't know what third world shithole you're employed in,
Click to expand...
Whoa man, that was uncalled for.
Please remember that you can afford most of your electronic gadgets because they're made with cheap labour in "third world shithole" countries. Most people just ignore this fact but you chose to go one step further, huh?
 
How DARE white and Asian men take offense to being told they should "diversify" themselves out of jobs! What is this world coming to when we can't use overt racism and sexism to engineer society to the way liberals want it to look like? Skin color and gender identity should always take precedence over merit. I'll be sure to do my part and insist on an Affirmative Action doctor to perform my next surgery.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
This is nonsensical. Like, these two sentences make zero sense together. If you drop the second sentence, then you've literally just agreed with me.



IQ tests are not tests of ability. Specifically, not the ability to be a software engineer.
Click to expand...
Well this explains everything you're unable to grasp the concept of distribution of values. Sorry but this is like high school math. No wonder you don't understand the nuances of the manifesto.

IQ tests are test for a type of thinking. Of course scoring high on IQ tests doesn't automatically make you a programmer. But scoring high means you have better affinity for it.
 
STR said:
Sigh...one more time...

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
Click to expand...
Did you try to understand what I posted above? If so, try again. And look at it through the jerk's point of view.
 
Xyvotha said:
Whoa man, that was uncalled for.
Please remember that you can afford most of your electronic gadgets because they're made with cheap labour in "third world shithole" countries. Most people just ignore this fact but you chose to go one step further, huh?
Click to expand...
If you think I'm against third world countries think again. I've been to the third world. I lived in a shithole, in fact my country is still barely more than a shithole. It doesn't offend me, it saddens me. Not calling a shithole a shithole won't make it any less of a shithole.
 
STR said:
Prove how this relates to the recruitment and hiring of female CS engineers.
Click to expand...
I already explained it how. Two or three times at least. Go back and read it.
 
M76 said:
I already explained it how. Two or three times at least. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...

You've posted numerous non-sequitors, sure. Nothing that actually proves the argument at hand.

M76 said:
Well this explains everything you're unable to grasp the concept of distribution of values. Sorry but this is like high school math. No wonder you don't understand the nuances of the manifesto.
Click to expand...

My math is fine. You inability to grasp that diversity programs are not about individual candidates is where the problem lies.

Of course scoring high on IQ tests doesn't automatically make you a programmer.
Click to expand...

In other words, you concede the point but don't want to admit it. I'd also point out that IQ tests were abandoned by recruiters and HR departments because they are so socially biased and non-predictive of job performance.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
Sigh...one more time...

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
Click to expand...
Repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it any more meaningful. It just makes you look like an idiot.
 
M76 said:
If you think I'm against third world countries think again. I've been to the third world. I lived in a shithole, in fact my country is still barely more than a shithole. It doesn't offend me, it saddens me. Not calling a shithole a shithole won't make it any less of a shithole.
Click to expand...
It's ok if I think my country is a shithole, but when someone else says that in my face it hurts :p
Haha under your logic would it be ok for me to talk shit about any other country than mine? Nah, I don't buy that as much as I don't buy most SJW BS.
 
I think what everybody is missing is the part about women's preferences being different than men's. I work with many very capable female software engineers, but over my lifetime I have come to understand that women in general are not as attracted to that type of work. With fewer women seeking work in IT/Software areas, there will be less of them hired, all other things being equal. Now let the SJWs make something out of that.
 
PaulP said:
Repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it any more meaningful. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I keep posting that while other people keep posting the same "you have to tolerate my intolerance" line. I'd move on if they'd read the rebuttal and counter that. You know, move the debate along instead of repeating the opening argument ad infinitum.

So, fair warning to all, do not respond to any of my posts with any statement equivalent to "you have to tolerate my intolerance". I'm not going to engage it and will just point you back to my previous response until you respond to that.
 
PaulP said:
I think what everybody is missing is the part about women's preferences being different than men's. I work with many very capable female software engineers, but over my lifetime I have come to understand that women in general are not as attracted to that type of work.
Click to expand...

Right. The crux of this,ALL OF THIS, is why are they not attracted to the CS field.

You have one side which, emphatically, insists it's biological and there's no point in even trying.
The other side says, maybe it's cultural, which means we could actually do something about it simply by changing attitudes.

You can't say it's the former without trying the latter.

M76 said:
Well this explains everything you're unable to grasp the concept of distribution of values. Sorry but this is like high school math.
Click to expand...

Even if I took your distributions as givens, it doesn't explain why the CS field is 90-95% male. At worst, it'd be a 2:1 margin. If I actually ran numbers it would almost certainly be less than that. You're throwing up distribution curves without applying statistical reasoning to the results.

You're just grasping at straws to justify the status quo.
 
Last edited:
DigitalGriffin said:
Your diverting. Both are toxic. It does not remove the fact that he states "Woman are biologicial inferior for such work" which is discriminatory against their ability.

The same arguments were used against the Tuskege Airmen as to why they couldn't fly fighters during WWII. They were some of the best and most devoted pilots ever.
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong... No where does he say that women are inferior and to suggest his criticism of the feminist agenda is analogous in any way to the Tuskege Airmen is ridiculous.

Clearly you have not read the memo and are comfortable repeating distorted and false summations. Being a toady for the feminist agenda does not make you intelligent nor enlightened...

Here is the memo in question:
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
 
If you disagree with a SJW, you're "intolerant". Therefore, the SJW is relieved of the burden of having to tolerate your beliefs. See?

In a related item to the lack of women in computer programming, I've just noticed that 50+ year old, short, fat, white men are under-represented in the NBA. Based on demographics, each team should have at least 2.3 of them. None do. Obviously, we need to economically boycott the NBA until they conform with our view of a "just society".
 
M76 said:
Well I don't know what third world shithole you're employed in, but where I live the laws are very specific about employment contracts, and that anything that you put into the work contract that would reduce rights of the employee is automatically void. You can only add clauses that differs from the laws in favour of the employee. So even if some stupid company puts in "We can fire you for no reason" they cannot actually fire you without reason. They can let you go for economic reasons but then you're entitled to a severance package which is dependent on how long you worked at the company.
Click to expand...

Well it's a shithole, and almost third world- Arizona. :) You can check it if you want, but the labor 'laws' here are pretty hardcore in favor of employers when it comes to firings. Here, you can be let go for economic reasons, but there's no entitlement of a severance. It depends on the company you work for.
 
STR said:
The other side says, maybe it's cultural, which means we could actually do something about it simply by changing attitudes.

You can't say it's the former without trying the latter.
Click to expand...
But why would you want to? How does this benefit everyone? Change an entire culture to change something that's left up to preference? If there was something in place that stops women from entering this field i would be with you on how to fix that. But there are no barriers to entry, unless you consider other women shaming the geek and nerd girls from going into an IT profession a problem.

Even saying the above would completely dismiss the utter crap that most guys have to go through who are interested in Tech when growing up. It's not as if it's a one sided issue. The cool kids are not into programming or into computers. Maybe this has changed over the last 20 years, but i don't think it reasonably has.

Setting up whole different structures and making societal/cultural changes so that you get a 50/50 spread between men and women in a single field is nuts. Why not start at sanitation workers/construction workers/janitors, and the other way with health care, beauticians, social workers, elementary and middle school teachers, meeting and convention planners and all the rest of the women dominated fields?

Why do every single one of you only focuses on IT?

STR said:
Even if I took your distributions as givens, it doesn't explain why the CS field is 90-95% male. At worst, it'd be a 2:1 margin. If I actually ran numbers it would almost certainly be less than that. You're throwing up distribution curves without applying statistical reasoning to the results.You're just grasping at straws to justify the status quo.
Click to expand...
There is almost no reasonable explanation other than they don't like it. It's a choice to decide on your major. There are women in the field, ask them why they finished their degree and didn't switch to any of the other fields.

Can you reasonably come up with even an idea that tries to explain this graph?
tumblr_ne7oehnWBn1qa0uujo1_540.png
 
Matt Walsh just wrote about this in his new article. I know some of you may not like him. In his article, he is making pretty good points about what happened at Google.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Why do every single one of you only focuses on IT?
tumblr_ne7oehnWBn1qa0uujo1_540.png
Click to expand...

Did you look at the chart you posted? That's indicative of something rotten in IT. We're training all these people in CS, spending enormous resources, and then the graduates are throwing it all away to start over with something else. Not sure about you, but I have a strong distaste for things that inefficient.

Also, this is an IT board. That's kinda the main topic around here.


Setting up whole different structures and making societal/cultural changes so that you get a 50/50 spread between men and women in a single field is nuts.
Click to expand...

Okay. Where did I suggest this? I didn't. I even said a 2:1 disparity could probably be justifiable if we all agreed M76's chart was the gospel truth of CS ability (it isn't, but let's go with it for the sake of argument).

Even then, you wouldn't expect the chart that you posted.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
You've posted numerous non-sequitors, sure. Nothing that actually proves the argument at hand.
Click to expand...
The argument is that biological differences cause women to be better at some things and worse at other things than men. If you're not convinced of that you're beyond any hope of redemption. And I won't waste any more of my time trying to pull your head above the table while you insist on ducking under it.

My math is fine. You inability to grasp that diversity programs are not about individual candidates is where the problem lies.
Click to expand...
You demonstrated that you don't get it, denial won't change that.
You think I don't know that diversity programs aren't about individuals? FFS, that's exactly the problem with them, that's why I'm opposed to them, that's why they perpetuate sexism, resentment, and hate, and that's why they're inherently unfair to the individual.
In other words, you concede the point but don't want to admit it. I'd also point out that IQ tests were abandoned by recruiters and HR departments because they are so socially biased and non-predictive of job performance.
Click to expand...
IQ tests are not meant to measure job performance. They meant to measure potential. This is again about distribution of values, which you demonstrated a lack of understanding of.

You can have very high IQ but still lack any useful skill. That doesn't mean intelligence is not relevant. It only means it can't be used as the sole measure of one's worth at the workplace. Again nuance eludes you.
 
M76 said:
The argument is that biological differences cause women to be better at some things and worse at other things than men. If you're not convinced of that you're beyond any hope of redemption. And I won't waste any more of my time trying to pull your head above the table while you insist on ducking under it.
Click to expand...

Your argument is "men and women are different" because you can't prove that 9:1 disparity in the CS field is a result of biology. Which, like I said, is moving the goal posts.

You'd have to prove the disparity as justified before you can argue for the dismantling of diversity programs.
 
STR said:
Did you look at the chart you posted? That's indicative of something rotten in IT. We're training all these people in CS, spending enormous resources, and then the graduates are throwing it all away to start over with something else. Not sure about you, but I have a strong distaste for things that inefficient.

Also, this is an IT board. That's kinda the main topic around here.
Click to expand...
How is that indicative of something rotten in IT? You're coming up with conclusions before you even try to explain the problem, which is the issue.

Who's this "We" in the "We're training all these people"? We don't have socialized college education. There is no we. There's people choose to pay for education and go into the majors they're most interested in.

The graph has to do with women majors by field and year. It means that after 1984 the number of enrolled women dropped and continued to drop while all the rest of the fields went up. This was around the time when college started to become mandatory (at least here in the US).

There's no secret society or patriarchy holding a gun to women telling them not to go into CS or any other related major. Individual personal choices are at work here.

STR said:
Okay. Where did I suggest this?
Click to expand...
Everything you have said on the subject has indicated that you believe that there's an inequality in the IT field that needs to be rectified. You even suggested to make cultural changes to do so because you see it as a problem.

You don't see the other fields which are more equal an issue.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Well it's a shithole, and almost third world- Arizona. :) You can check it if you want, but the labor 'laws' here are pretty hardcore in favor of employers when it comes to firings. Here, you can be let go for economic reasons, but there's no entitlement of a severance. It depends on the company you work for.
Click to expand...
I gambled that it's the US, that's why I meant third world shithole sarcastically. You don't even have paid vacation days there, do you? So in this regard it is worse than the third world! Of course if I'd make the same money here than what is normal for the US I'd gladly forego paid vacation days.
 
STR said:
It's discrimination either way, but it's only justified if you actually have facts. If a woman can't carry a wounded soldier on her back (or equivalent weight) she can't join the infantry. Most women can't carry 200+ pounds, therefore most women are barred from the infantry. That's discriminatory, but because it's justified it's legal and accepted.

However, we're not talking about physical strength (of which there is ample evidence of disparity). We're talking about being an engineer. There is zero evidence one sex is inherently better at math and logic than the other. That's your, and the ex-Googler's, problem. He compounded his first mistake by putting it on blast, and thereby slagging all of his female coworkers who (if he wasn't fired) would be forced to work with a person who openly claims they're inferior.
Click to expand...
Not quite. While I have been employed in the IT field for nearly 30 years my degree is in Behavioral/Experimental Psychology. There is decades of research that supports biological differences between the sexes with regards to math and verbal skills. If we think of these skills being distributed across a bell curve we will see women at all levels of math skills including the highest levels. There will simply be a higher percentage of men at the upper levels than women while we will see lower levels of men at the highest levels of verbal skills. Women, as a statistical population, are not inferior at math at the highest levels they are simply outnumbered by men.

Daemon is suggesting that hiring engineering positions based upon sex rather than merit will mean discriminating against men. It is normal and natural that there will be more men in the technical fields than women however one cannot conclude that the work of individual men will be superior to the work of individual women.

The feminist author Camila Paglia in her book "Free Women, Free Men" suggests that women cannot be equal unless men are also equal. She suggests the culture in academia with regards to SJW and political correctness is "Stalinist" and modern feminists irrationally disparage men, their talents and contribution to our culture. The attack on the former Google engineer from this perspective is sexist and discriminatory.
 
STR said:
Your argument is "men and women are different" because you can't prove that 9:1 disparity in the CS field is a result of biology. Which, like I said, is moving the goal posts.

You'd have to prove the disparity as justified before you can argue for the dismantling of diversity programs.
Click to expand...
Again with this lack of nuance. It is not only due to biology as I explained the social factors numerous times already. Diversity programs in workplaces are not helping. They're trying to solve the symptom not the cause. And in turn create even worse symptoms.
Intelligence is a factor in tech, it's not a metric of your value in tech, it's a metric of your potential. And IQ tests performed around the world show the same results that I already posted. And the best theory for that difference in the distribution of intelligence between men and women is biological differences. But if you have a better explanation I'd like to hear it.
In the end it doesn't matter what is the primary cause of the difference. There is no one cause it's a combination of factors. But the difference is measurable and observable. And trying to deny it exits doesn't help anyone. Instead of labelling everyone sexists who refuse to sign up for the bullshit that there is no difference, we should try to solve the problem by addressing the root causes. Ironically social justice and diversity politics only caused even more decline of women's enrolment into tech fields.
 
Xyvotha said:
It's ok if I think my country is a shithole, but when someone else says that in my face it hurts :p
Haha under your logic would it be ok for me to talk shit about any other country than mine? Nah, I don't buy that as much as I don't buy most SJW BS.
Click to expand...
Depends how you define shit talking. If you say things that are untrue then it's a problem. But if what you say is demonstrably true then you can shit talk about any country. Not mentioning a problem for fear of offending someone with it is the sjw way. If you see a problem with me or my country I want you to mention it so I can address that problem. An sjw would try to ignore the problem and leave me to continue to act stupid.
 
In news elsewhere, similarly to all the clamour around the Bell Curve when it was first introduced, hundreds of female IT workers marched on San Francisco in protest, after local researchers suggested that the Hourglass curve might be detrimental to productivity in the IT work environment. While claims were made that a larger percentage of the female IT workforce didn't fit the standard mold proffered by the Hourglass hypothesis, a large number were also quick to note that those polled were comprised largely of not only a number of he was a shes and vice versas, but generally unappealing looking individuals.

More on this story at 10:00.
 
thejokker said:
Daemon is suggesting that hiring engineering positions based upon sex rather than merit will mean discriminating against men.
Click to expand...

Not only that, he goes on to also imply that Google has lowered the entry barrier for 'diversity' applicants, resulting in diminishing quality of their product.

I very much liked your post by the way. Well put.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top