The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd be discrimination."
He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name ("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to conclude that it is discrimination against men to have outreach programs for females?
The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion." You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.
Huh? The fact that the majority of people dismissed this memo, and is actually a small amount of the usual suspects getting "offended" about Damore getting fired, tells me that people are more "incredulous" about his argument.
The funny bit about "my assertions" as you call them, is that actually the only "assertion" I make is: this is not settled science; trying to build an argument around it is as useless as us trying to decide policy by speculating on whether Bitcoin will destroy fiat money or not. It's people like Damore (and you, apparently) who are trying to make this a "settled matter".
Please, back your assertions. Please tell me in concrete numbers what percentage of women are not interested in STEM because of biological factors? I mean, if it's settled science, you surely know the answer, right?
Where are these "facts"? I was talking about the credulity of your comments, not the memo. But in fact I'll admit I made an error here - I misread, you aren't OP.
> trying to build an argument around it is as useless
He tried to begin a discussion. His memo was based mostly on feedback he'd received in doing so. Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks.
> Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks.
Let me break it down for you, because it seems like the inference chain is escaping you:
- The moment he starts suggesting "things we can do to fix this", it's clear that there's a problem. I mean, why suggest fixes if nothing's broken? (Engineering 101)
- What's the problem? Apparently, trying to reach a 50/50 gender parity is discriminatory. But wait a minute, that's about the split in population, so how can that be discriminatory?
- There has to be something that Damore knows that we don't know that explains why 50/50 is wrong. Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering at the same rate as men are. Never mind that only 70 years ago women couldn't even participate in the workforce, or that all the way until double-income families became necessary they were actively discouraged to participate in the workforce. Never mind that only about 30 years ago the US started programs to encourage women to participate in STEM careers. I mean, all those things wouldn't explain the disparity, so there has to be something else.
- Well, of course! It's the genes! I mean, we know (from his memo) that women are just not interested in "things" but "people" (conclusion derived by a study that has been debunked and even the author couldn't replicate) and that they "get more anxious". You know girls, they freak out and stuff! Of course that'd explain why they feel anxious in a job where they are literally surrounded by males. Nothing to do with things like "beer thirty" being the norm, but rather it's their genes. D'oh!
So that's the crux of it: Damore admits that there's social issues, but rather than addressing them and seeing if the disparity fixes itself, he'd rather call the efforts "discrimination" without any proof that actually they are affecting males. He could've made a solid argument (and one that wouldn't have gotten him fired) if he had asked, honestly, whether creating different queues for minority candidates isn't in itself a form of discrimination. Laying out his theory about women being "different" is where he went against Google's Code of Conduct. That kind of shit is better left for r/theredpill, not your work environment where you have to interact with women.
I hate reminding you, but this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people until very recently. Going back to your "metaphor" about segregation: Damore is not Rosa Parks, he's the driver trying to tell us that "why should we let black people sit at the front of the bus, when they seem pretty happy in the backseats."
If you've read the memo, then you don't understand it if this is your conclusion.
> Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering
You've also tried to badger me with "demands" for whatever level of certainty you decide. Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out".
> Never mind that..
If you think you have a better case for explaining the disparity, then do as I suggested, and create a memo of your own. Are you claiming that the memo must be a fraud, because your own opinion isn't represented in it? Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought.
> a study that has been debunked
But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking?
You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying:
> this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people
> Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out".
That was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Damore doesn't have any solid evidence, just an "intuition" (read: bias) based on some articles he's read. At least he's honest enough to admit he's not infallible. You, on the other hand...
> Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought.
Please, correct my wrong assumptions. You seem to be well informed in the subject, seeing as you are telling me I'm wrong. So far, you've been incapable of answering the simplest of questions: what is the number of women who are not interested in engineering because of biological causes?
> But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking?
As an aside, notice that the split in the study doesn't correlate with the 80/20% gender divide at Google. So even if the study was correct, Damore's point would still be bullshit.
> You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying
Awe, look at you! Trying to do the old alt-right "by pointing out someone else's racism you are the real racist" switcharoo! It would be cute, except for the unfortunate events in Charlottesville that reminds us that racism is alive and doing great in the US.
Yes, I do flip at people trying to use dubious "biological" causes to explain away clear societal issues. You, my friend, are one of them.
I've asked you to quote the memo, or provide citations. How can I correct your assumptions, if I don't know how you came to those conclusions? Do you want me to guess the ways you might have come to those conclusions, or which parts of the memo you might have misread? I'm not going to speculate if you aren't going to substantiate your assertions.
> You seem to be well informed in the subject
The subject in this case is "What the google memo says", we've yet to advance from there. Given the tone of your posts, I'm not inclined to enter into a general discussion on the topic. But you've misrepresented Damore's memo, And I think this should be corrected.
> This is the study..
Which paragraph of the memo cites the study? And where did you source your version of the memo?
> Google for more, it's not that hard.
No, it's your burden. And Google is not research.
> what is the number of women
I think I made myself clear. I'm not answering your questions until you rescind or substantiate your assertions. And this question isn't one you want answering, you are just asking it to imply it's relevant to the content of the memo, which it isn't.
> switcharoo
Problem is "pointing out someone else's racism" requires "someone else's racism". You flipped out because you don't want to conflate Damore's situation with Parks', but you'll happily conflate it with that of racists of the same era. You asked "what has [the memo] got in common with Jim Crow" in disgust, but now you're equating google engineer writing a cited memo about gender differences, to exactly that.
> racism is .. doing great in the US
So far as the events in Charlottesville are representative of the entire country - which they aren't.
> You, my friend, are one of them.
In your opinion. And you opinion is informed by a severe lack of comprehension, in both the contents of the memo, and my own posts. So long as you are not arguing in good faith, I doubt this will change.
The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd be discrimination."
He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name ("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to conclude that it is discrimination against men to have outreach programs for females?
The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion." You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.