Purity tests - how the left is killing itself
RealityForAll said:
If I tell you that, on average, a group you belong to is less qualified for a certain type of work, am I not placing a burden upon you to prove to me that you are not average?
"Different interests" (term that I used) is vastly different than your standard, "less qualified." IOW you have concocted a loaded question. I don't respond substantively to loaded questions.
"More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics."
Gotta say, if I'm a female SWE, not sure how I feel about that. Do my male colleagues really think I belong here, or do they suspect that I'm some kind of weird anomaly going against my natural gender inclinations? And how come men don't have this burden of proving themselves that I seem to have?
PVW seems incapable of accepting observations about the world even if true. Interesting.
terp said:
Are you saying those points are factually incorrect?
It doesn't matter. Google has these programs, therefore at least some of Damore's colleagues went through them. You can't go around implying that you suspect your colleagues of being unqualified, and think that's going to go over well.
Again, you are putting words in his mouth to make a case that isn't there.
paulsurovell said:
(1) Too bad.
(2) Your statement that Tulsi is a "Libertarian candidate" needed to be examined.
I didn't say she was a Libertarian candidate, paulsurovell.
terp said:
Virtue signalling is a distinct behavior pattern. The point here is that women must be protected. PVW seems to think that women both lack general reading comprehension skills and/or will wither on the vine if they encounter someone making general observations about population groups. I happen to work with a lot of women, whom I respect greatly. If I thought this of them, they'd laugh me out of the room.
I'm guessing his ridiculous hypothetical must have a point. Again, I think it could be a general lack of reading comprehension skills. But let's be real. He is indicating he has bought into the orthodoxy. He is in the in group. There is a term for that. It's called virtue signalling.
when someone calls another person's behavior "virtue signaling" it's not meant as a pejorative? From the context in which it's used, that was my conclusion. But if I'm wrong and there's no value judgment attached, then I guess I'll have to reconsider what meaning it conveys to me.
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
If I tell you that, on average, a group you belong to is less qualified for a certain type of work, am I not placing a burden upon you to prove to me that you are not average?
"Different interests" (term that I used) is vastly different than your standard, "less qualified." IOW you have concocted a loaded question. I don't respond substantively to loaded questions.
"More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics."
Gotta say, if I'm a female SWE, not sure how I feel about that. Do my male colleagues really think I belong here, or do they suspect that I'm some kind of weird anomaly going against my natural gender inclinations? And how come men don't have this burden of proving themselves that I seem to have?
I am still waiting for you (PVW) to acknowledge that you are concocting loaded questions?
Now we have you projecting the feelings of a HYPOTHETICAL female, software engineer in order to make your argument.
Next, we can take up why there are so few men in nursing or working as bank tellers.
Why do many NYC hospitals have a disproportionate number of filipina immigrant nurses?
Why are so many roofers men?
Why do so many roofers have alcohol issues?
Why are so many NHL players NOT of color?
Why does so many auto mechanics have a Y chromosone?
Historically why were there so many Jewish tailors?
RealityForAll said:
Now we have you projecting the feelings of a HYPOTHETICAL female, software engineer in order to make your argument.
Next, we can take up why there are so few men in nursing or working as bank tellers.
Why do many NYC hospitals have a disproportionate number of filipina immigrant nurses?
Why are so many roofers men?
Why do so many roofers have alcohol issues?
Why are so many NHL players NOT of color?
Why does so many auto mechanics have a Y chromosone?
Historically why were there so many Jewish tailors?
Why can’t I find any memos stating that female nurses, male roofers and white hockey players have distinguishing abilities that are due, in part, to biological causes?
Also, what you call projecting the feelings of hypothetical people is what I’d call empathy and an admirable facility for thinking beyond oneself.
RealityForAll said:
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
If I tell you that, on average, a group you belong to is less qualified for a certain type of work, am I not placing a burden upon you to prove to me that you are not average?
"Different interests" (term that I used) is vastly different than your standard, "less qualified." IOW you have concocted a loaded question. I don't respond substantively to loaded questions.
"More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics."
Gotta say, if I'm a female SWE, not sure how I feel about that. Do my male colleagues really think I belong here, or do they suspect that I'm some kind of weird anomaly going against my natural gender inclinations? And how come men don't have this burden of proving themselves that I seem to have?
I am still waiting for you (PVW) to acknowledge that you are concocting loaded questions?
Now we have you projecting the feelings of a HYPOTHETICAL female, software engineer in order to make your argument.
Here's some non-hypothetical female engineers, if you're interested:
https://blog.ycombinator.com/ask-a-female-engineer-thoughts-on-the-google-memo/
I think you'll find that these particular engineers agree with you in some places and disagree on others.
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:
Now we have you projecting the feelings of a HYPOTHETICAL female, software engineer in order to make your argument.
Next, we can take up why there are so few men in nursing or working as bank tellers.
Why do many NYC hospitals have a disproportionate number of filipina immigrant nurses?
Why are so many roofers men?
Why do so many roofers have alcohol issues?
Why are so many NHL players NOT of color?
Why does so many auto mechanics have a Y chromosone?
Historically why were there so many Jewish tailors?
Why can’t I find any memos stating that female nurses, male roofers and white hockey players have distinguishing abilities that are due, in part, to biological causes?
Also, what you call projecting the feelings of hypothetical people is what I’d call empathy and an admirable facility for thinking beyond oneself.
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron". In "Harrison Bergeron" total equality is achieved at an incredible cost (similarly, the impetus for seeking total equality is disproportionate representation in various occupations - although I do not believe Vonnegut used the words "disproportionate representation" but the thought process was similar). IOW, absolute equality is the enemy of freedom and individuality.
FWIW: Your discussion just made me take a look around -- Are Nan and I the only females active in the Politics section? As a female with a graduate degree in mathematics, it's not unusual for me to be in settings that are mostly male... so while I don't want to be a 'spokesperson for females', perhaps I can clarify a few things.
Guys -- do you have any idea that statements such as "Do you have so little faith and confidence in female engineers (and aspiring female engineers) that you believe that they (female engineers), individually or collectively, will be injured by a different POV?" get tossed around frequently? And what are the possible responses? Basically, the burden is on the female to play the right role and say "of course not". Because if a female indicates the various scenarios when it would not be OK, when one would likely be offended, then it can make you a target, or treated as not-tough-enough, etc.
Here's the nuance: Generally, it's not that one "different POV", it's not about "that one guy" who seems to derive pleasure from posting almost-misogynistic screeds and seeing women's reactions, etc. It's more about workplace culture.
- Is my work a place that I feel supported, comfortable, and able to do my best work?
- Or is it a place where I don't know the next time I'm going to have to 'play the right role for my gender' to get my idea recognized, or get a promotion, or even just to get left alone so I can get my work done? If it's common to have someone say "That doesn't offend you, right?", that is a passive-aggressive power-play with the intent of bringing to the front of one's mind any insecurities about how one is different.
My guess about Google: With the level of competitiveness to get a job there, it may be a leaning towards the latter culture. But Google probably wants to seem like a supportive comfortable place for people, including females, to do their best work. The office culture is a leadership challenge to manage.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
(1) Too bad.
(2) Your statement that Tulsi is a "Libertarian candidate" needed to be examined.
I didn't say she was a Libertarian candidate, paulsurovell.
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron". In "Harrison Bergeron" total equality is achieved at an incredible cost (similarly, the impetus for seeking total equality is disproportionate representation in various occupations - although I do not believe Vonnegut used the words "disproportionate representation" but the thought process was similar). IOW, absolute equality is the enemy of freedom and individuality.
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron".
If by missing your point you mean I didn’t grasp it, I did. If by missing it you mean my reply didn’t address it, you’re right, it didn’t.
I’m always happy to read more Vonnegut. If I didn’t know your MOL aversions better, however, I’d say that sounded just a wee bit like homework.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
(1) Too bad.
(2) Your statement that Tulsi is a "Libertarian candidate" needed to be examined.
I didn't say she was a Libertarian candidate, paulsurovell.
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron".
If by missing your point you mean I didn’t grasp it, I did. If by missing it you mean my reply didn’t address it, you’re right, it didn’t.
I’m always happy to read more Vonnegut. If I didn’t know your MOL aversions better, however, I’d say that sounded just a wee bit like homework.
No homework. You and I are equals.
Just think of ridski as a careless commenter who doesn’t have a clue about irony.
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron". In "Harrison Bergeron" total equality is achieved at an incredible cost (similarly, the impetus for seeking total equality is disproportionate representation in various occupations - although I do not believe Vonnegut used the words "disproportionate representation" but the thought process was similar). IOW, absolute equality is the enemy of freedom and individuality.
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
Great literature means different things to different people. Thus, it seems that a conclusion of "terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story" is almost certainly an impossibility.
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron". In "Harrison Bergeron" total equality is achieved at an incredible cost (similarly, the impetus for seeking total equality is disproportionate representation in various occupations - although I do not believe Vonnegut used the words "disproportionate representation" but the thought process was similar). IOW, absolute equality is the enemy of freedom and individuality.
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
Great literature means different things to different people. Thus, it seems that a conclusion of "terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story" is almost certainly an impossibility.
Oh, now we're allowing for the possibility that people can derive multiple meanings from a piece of writing.
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
DS, you have missed the point completely. IMHO, the fact that disproportionate attraction/representation to certain occupations runs along gender lines is NOT per-se evidence of discrimination. You may want to read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron". In "Harrison Bergeron" total equality is achieved at an incredible cost (similarly, the impetus for seeking total equality is disproportionate representation in various occupations - although I do not believe Vonnegut used the words "disproportionate representation" but the thought process was similar). IOW, absolute equality is the enemy of freedom and individuality.
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
Great literature means different things to different people. Thus, it seems that a conclusion of "terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story" is almost certainly an impossibility.
Oh, now we're allowing for the possibility that people can derive multiple meanings from a piece of writing.
Kind of like what "causes" attraction to various occupations/professions (multiple POVs on this subject).
I re-read Damore's memo. I recall reading at the time and thinking it was really terribly poor reasoning. And I recalled correctly. It reads like a guy who wrote an argument and then went back and added some half-hearted attempts at documentation. His citations include Wikipedia, and magazine summaries of academic research. I'm pretty sure there are no original sources cited at all. It includes information like the handy chart below outlining his own stereotypes about "the left" and "the right." This has no footnote, so I'm assuming it came out of his own brain and nobody's academic work. I wonder how much of the negative reaction to the memo was due to how badly researched and reasoned it was. Because the scientific basis for the ideas is so flimsy, people (probably correctly) interpreted the memo as a summary Damore's biases and not as any kind of attempt at communicating scientific truths.
That said, even people with poorly reasoned arguments have a right to their ideas and the right to be heard. But given the lack of intellectual weight behind the memo, and the angry response to it, it's not all that surprising Google fired him. We're all entitled to our ideas, but nobody's employer is required to endorse poorly reasoned ideas that inflame tension in the workplace. And it turns out the NLRB was ready to uphold Google's decision before Damore withdrew his claim against it.
People should not feel afraid to approach controversial topics that could offend others. But common sense would seem to dictate that you construct your arguments with great care and great rigor in order to stand up to criticism. IMHO Damore's memo didn't do any of that. It poked the hornet's nest for sure, but there was no strong argument as foundation for doing so.
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
Great literature means different things to different people. Thus, it seems that a conclusion of "terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story" is almost certainly an impossibility.
Yet you managed it, which is indicative of your special aptitude.
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
That's a terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story as an example.
Also, unless you're saying that women aren't as capable of being engineers as men are, it's really a misuse.
Great literature means different things to different people. Thus, it seems that a conclusion of "terrible misuse of a Vonnegut story" is almost certainly an impossibility.
Yet you managed it, which is indicative of your special aptitude.
Je ne suis pas d'accord!
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
(1) Too bad.
(2) Your statement that Tulsi is a "Libertarian candidate" needed to be examined.
I didn't say she was a Libertarian candidate, paulsurovell.
{Gif of man blinking eyes ]
Just so we can compare the Gif with what you said.
ridski said:
[animated gif drink stirring]
What is wrong with you?
Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
RealityForAll said:
What is wrong with you?
Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
I said I did not say Tulsi Gabbard was a Libertarian candidate and I meant it.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
"The discussion continues from there, and anyone who is interested can go and read it - which means there's no need for any more 'summaries' of each other's positions."
Guess I should have written that as "any more 'summaries' or insults". My bad.