Search This Blog

August 9, 2017

So what part of the Google "manifesto" is false?

  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. So what part of the Google "manifesto" is false?
Here's the document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

Now what specific claims does he make there that's wrong?
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
EndOfDiscOne 23 hours ago#2
According to this a couple of minor things may be off, but not nearly as much as the attackers claim. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond
Ulti was right
ChromaticAngel 23 hours ago#3
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Now what specific claims does he make there that's wrong?


Well lets start with basically the first page.

Phg1LEG
QQY4TgT

this is bulls***. It's a sweeping generalization that tries to express an issue in terms that is much more simple than it actually is.

moving on:

X4ypgxx

Wrong on most counts here.

1. They are definitely not universal across human culture. to suggest such is absolute f***ing madness the likes of which I literally can't even fathom.
2. Programmed biological responses to hormones is simply a fact, but by itself doesn't explain social differences.
3. What study is this from? What does it mean to "act like males"? Is he suggesting that eunuchs do not exhibit any behavioral differences between themselves and virile men? Because that last part is pretty much total bulls***.
4. traits are inherited, but every child inherits from both a male and female parent, barring new cutting edge medical breakthroughs.
5. "exactly what we would predict"? what the f*** is that supposed to mean?

eghzAPp

What the f*** is being measured in that graph? I can also draw lines on paper.

etc.

The dude is a f***ing tech engineer, not a psychologist or sociologist, or even a medical professional. He doesn't know s*** and is trying to act like he does.
The data may be sound but that doesn't mean his interpretations of the data or proposed solutions in his workplace are valid.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
Lorenzo_2003 22 hours ago#5
ChromaticAngel posted...

The dude is a f***ing tech engineer, not a psychologist or sociologist, or even a medical professional. He doesn't know s*** and is trying to act like he does.


The former is true. The latter, I'm not convinced of.

James Damore has a degree in molecular and cellular biology. He also has a masters in systems biology, which apparently has to do with modeling complex biological systems that can impact human health and environmental studies. (Not going to lie, I had to look that up.)
...
EndOfDiscOne 14 hours ago#6
I'm willing to bet that this guy knows his s*** better than 99% of the people rallying against him. If you're well studied in these areas and you think he's wrong, fine. But if you think he's wrong because you don't like what he says, that's another matter.

There is the question about whether scienctific conclusions should be silenced if they are harmful to people. To me that's a more interesting question and I don't have the answer. But a lot of the people who would say yes, call themselves pro science and that's just not true.
Ulti was right
Nikra 14 hours ago#7
f*** google: Something is serious wrong with a company that manage to land a fine of $2.7 billion (EU)
And just put the money aside in order to pay it.
foreveraIone 14 hours ago#8
EndOfDiscOne posted...
I'm willing to bet that this guy knows his s*** better than 99% of the people rallying against him. If you're well studied in these areas and you think he's wrong, fine. But if you think he's wrong because you don't like what he says, that's another matter.

There is the question about whether scienctific conclusions should be silenced if they are harmful to people. To me that's a more interesting question and I don't have the answer. But a lot of the people who would say yes, call themselves pro science and that's just not true.

Uh oh.

Ur not talking about

R and iq right?
Xeno14 13 hours ago#9
ChromaticAngel posted...
1. They are definitely not universal across human culture. to suggest such is absolute f***ing madness the likes of which I literally can't even fathom.
2. Programmed biological responses to hormones is simply a fact, but by itself doesn't explain social differences.
3. What study is this from? What does it mean to "act like males"? Is he suggesting that eunuchs do not exhibit any behavioral differences between themselves and virile men? Because that last part is pretty much total bulls***.
4. traits are inherited, but every child inherits from both a male and female parent, barring new cutting edge medical breakthroughs.
5. "exactly what we would predict"? what the f*** is that supposed to mean?

1. this speaks to your own faults not his. The studies he likely references are done on newborns, before socialization process has gotten in. Male infants focusing on thing oriented toys while females show more focus on people oriented things
2. actually it does. You know what group of women don't display gender differences at any age? Those with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance.

at this point i'm just gonna link to SSC since he did a write up on this with far more in depth then i could do in 4000 characters

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
(edited 13 hours ago)reportquote
ChromaticAngel 13 hours ago#10
Xeno14 posted...
1. this speaks to your own faults not his. The studies he likely references are done on newborns, before socialization process has gotten in. Male infants focusing on thing oriented toys while females show more focus on people oriented things


So you can't actually tell me what studies he references. That's cool. Because spoilers it's not about newborns.

Here is one (two) of them:

MoTDVEw

Unless your argument is that newborns are entering heterosexual romantic relationships.
Antifar 13 hours ago#11
Nikra 13 hours ago#12
Is it just me. Or does it seam that google imployees has hijacked this from TC.
Doom_Art 13 hours ago#13
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
cjsdowg 13 hours ago#14
Writing off social constructionism; Only in extreme form should it be dismissed outright. However Social Constructionism explains who things become real when humans put value to it. For example money. With out humans it is just cotton dyed green. We as people but value you to it. 

Note most people do not go extreme suggesting that nothing is really real.

Also what is the point of this .

Of the tech workers at google only 17% are woman. So what is he upset about any way.
Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives?
(edited 13 hours ago)reportquote
Transcendentia 11 hours ago#15
COVxy 11 hours ago#16
Transcendentia posted...
ahem

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/


There are obviously sex based differences in brain structure and cognition, but to suggest that this is the reason for male dominance in STEM is a giant leap. It's not a scientific conclusion unless there's direct evidence for it.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Transcendentia 11 hours ago#17
COVxy posted...
Transcendentia posted...
ahem

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/


There are obviously sex based differences in brain structure and cognition, but to suggest that this is the reason for male dominance in STEM is a giant leap. It's not a scientific conclusion unless there's direct evidence for it.


is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?
Humans are aliens too dumbass - clearaflagrantj
COVxy 11 hours ago#18
Transcendentia posted...
is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?


Might is the key word. This is a hypothesis at best. Pretending that it's a scientifically valid conclusion is to misunderstand evidence based reasoning.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
EndOfDiscOne 11 hours ago#19
COVxy posted...
Transcendentia posted...
is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?


Might is the key word. This is a hypothesis at best. Pretending that it's a scientifically valid conclusion is to misunderstand evidence based reasoning.


At least you can entertain the thought, which puts you way ahead of most people who are outraged by the memo.
Ulti was right
ChromaticAngel 10 hours ago#20
EndOfDiscOne posted...
COVxy posted...
Transcendentia posted...
is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?


Might is the key word. This is a hypothesis at best. Pretending that it's a scientifically valid conclusion is to misunderstand evidence based reasoning.


At least you can entertain the thought, which puts you way ahead of most people who are outraged by the memo.


The memo is a pile of garbage that undermines its own valid points by using sweeping generalizations and dismissal of social construction.

It'd be far shorter to isolate the valid points and discuss just those instead of trying to take the document as a whole.
That_Happened 10 hours ago#21
ChromaticAngel posted...
He doesn't know s*** and is trying to act like he does.

ChromaticAngel posted...
What the f*** is being measured in that graph? I can also draw lines on paper.
Transcendentia 10 hours ago#22
COVxy posted...
Transcendentia posted...
is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?


Might is the key word. This is a hypothesis at best. Pretending that it's a scientifically valid conclusion is to misunderstand evidence based reasoning.


Did he present that view as an axiom, though? It seemed like a very reasonable memo asking for discussion and evidence-based reasoning rather than echo chambers and an unrealistic notion of what it means to be diverse
Humans are aliens too dumbass - clearaflagrantj
paerarru 10 hours ago#23
Doom_Art posted...
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?

Good question. Answer?

Wait for it...

wait for it...

HE'S AN IDIOT.

Case solved. Next.
Transcendentia 10 hours ago#24
Doom_Art posted...
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?


He didn't actually do that, though. And why is it that at these companies you can say s*** about white people without it being deemed controversial? Complain about "too many white CEOs" or "too many white engineers" or some s*** and you'll get praised for it.
Humans are aliens too dumbass - clearaflagrantj
(edited 10 hours ago)reportquote
paerarru 10 hours ago#25
Transcendentia posted...
Doom_Art posted...
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?


He didn't actually do that, though. And why is it that at these companies you can say s*** about white people without it being deemed controversial? Complain about "too many white CEOs" or "too many white engineers" or some s*** and you'll get praised for it.

Praised by idiots, perhaps. Just like anybody who would praise this idiot.
Transcendentia 10 hours ago#26
paerarru posted...
Transcendentia posted...
Doom_Art posted...
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?


He didn't actually do that, though. And why is it that at these companies you can say s*** about white people without it being deemed controversial? Complain about "too many white CEOs" or "too many white engineers" or some s*** and you'll get praised for it.

Praised by idiots, perhaps. Just like anybody who would praise this idiot.


No one is praising him. They're actually calling for physical violence and lifetime bans from employment.
Humans are aliens too dumbass - clearaflagrantj
Suchomimus 10 hours ago#27
He is right in just about everything he said. His problem was using Google's resources as a soapbox for this memo. If he had just written it on a personal blog or something AND he got fired the outrage would be justified.

But did he really not expect to get fired by Google for writing this?
I'm a peasant.
WhinyZach 10 hours ago#28
Suchomimus posted...
He is right in just about everything he said. His problem was using Google's resources as a soapbox for this memo. If he had just written it on a personal blog or something AND he got fired the outrage would be justified.

But did he really not expect to get fired by Google for writing this?


Pretty much how I feel on this subject. He's not wrong, just stupid.
paerarru 9 hours ago#29
Transcendentia posted...
paerarru posted...
Transcendentia posted...
Doom_Art posted...
Why on Earth would he think it was a good idea to call a chunk of his coworkers token hires and soapbox about his controversial views throughout the company?


He didn't actually do that, though. And why is it that at these companies you can say s*** about white people without it being deemed controversial? Complain about "too many white CEOs" or "too many white engineers" or some s*** and you'll get praised for it.

Praised by idiots, perhaps. Just like anybody who would praise this idiot.


No one is praising him. They're actually calling for physical violence and lifetime bans from employment.

The previously mentioned other idiots.
Esrac 9 hours ago#30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw&feature=youtu.be

Apparently Prof. Jordan Peterson has a chat with James Damore here.
EndOfDiscOne posted...
I'm willing to bet that this guy knows his s*** better than 99% of the people rallying against him. If you're well studied in these areas and you think he's wrong, fine. But if you think he's wrong because you don't like what he says, that's another matter.

There is the question about whether scienctific conclusions should be silenced if they are harmful to people. To me that's a more interesting question and I don't have the answer. But a lot of the people who would say yes, call themselves pro science and that's just not true.


Scientific conclusions shouldn't be silenced. Misleading and politically-biased interpretations of that data should be shot down hard though.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
COVxy 5 hours ago#32
Transcendentia posted...
COVxy posted...
Transcendentia posted...
is it unreasonable to suggest that one reason women and men might prefer different types of work is because of those differences in brain structure and cognition?


Might is the key word. This is a hypothesis at best. Pretending that it's a scientifically valid conclusion is to misunderstand evidence based reasoning.


Did he present that view as an axiom, though? It seemed like a very reasonable memo asking for discussion and evidence-based reasoning rather than echo chambers and an unrealistic notion of what it means to be diverse


I haven't read the original, just skimmed that article you posted which did.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
EndOfDiscOne 5 hours ago#33
COVxy posted...
I haven't read the original


Neither have most of the people who want to crucify this guy
Ulti was right
  1. Boards
  2. Current Events 
  3. So what part of the Google "manifesto" is false?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Public Comments