I think Damore is an idealistic (and touchingly sweet, in a way) guy for believing in his company enough to make a reasoned argument regarding such supercharged issues as gender and diversity at a big corporation, Google or otherwise. If you watch the video, you can see what a lamb he is.
It's no surprise he got the axe; there would be no tolerance nor appetite for his scientific conclusions at any large company.
I'm sorry but "scientific" is a pretty big exaggeration here even from a purely methodological standpoint. the dude does start out trying to support some of his assertions (albeit seriously misrepresenting at least one of his sources and using others that are literally Experimental Design 101 textbook examples of how not to run experiments) which I guess could be construed that way, but he then supplies no evidence for his conclusions. Note the almost complete lack of citations or experimental support in the "Suggestions" section pointing to studies showing his ideas would positively impact the problems he claims to care about, the lack of any sort of failure-analysis or exploration of alternatives or discussion outside of the thesis of his argument. he just states some premises and jumps to a list of unsupported
and barely related conclusions. this can hardly be read as anything other than a list of political grievances and I don't understand why people keep describing this as if it were some sort of scientific endeavor.
Fascinating. Did you watch the entire linked video on this story? In the video description, there are quite a few scientific studies linked that back up Damore's views. But I'm sure you've got some FUD for me on that video as well.
I can do FUD, too. Watch this! Hey 46775335788, what's got you running damage control so hard on this story that you'd reply to some schmoe who top posted on a page 3 (doomed) New story? A paycheck perhaps?
What an interesting comment history your throwaway account has - first post on this New story, eh throwaway?
to support the premises maybe, but even then the conclusions are still largely unrelated to the premises and unsupported by any of the studies cited. I don't see anything particularly hackerly about defending bad attempts at science and have been continually attacked for this opinion for some reason I'm sure has nothing to do with people on both sides ignoring scientific procedure when it comes to either of their political interests.
You disagree with the conclusions, what a surprise. News flash: your passionate disagreement doesn't make you right or lend you any moral superiority.
You want to attempt superiority? How about choose a conclusion from the doc or the video and make your case. Are you purely agenda-fueled? Do you have the best interests of the future of Google and Google culture at heart? How the hell should I know, all you've done is throw shade.
> and have been continually attacked for this opinion for some reason I'm sure has nothing to do with people on both sides ignoring scientific procedure when it comes to either of their political interests.
I love this. You're being attacked because we think you're siding with the fascists. When you get fired for your speech and pilloried in the town square, come talk to me about your victim status.
Oh yeah, by the way 865356743, legit news agencies are citing THIS video. Gotta kill this story now, right?! Can you somehow get this video censored for 'insensitive' speech?
Get your employers down at YouTube to move the video to an unreachable place - call that place a gulag -- no, no, call it a video Goolag! Haha, that would be perfect.
OK it looks like there is a biological factor to gender based on DNA and genes. There is also a social aspect of gender that creates gender identity roles.
I think the social aspect should be called gender identity, and the science/biological gender be called biological gender. That way they don't get confused.
I've tried to ask for scientific proof of all of the different genders and got voted down anywhere I asked. I was told that gender is a social construct, etc.
So this is something that has scientific and social aspects to it, and gender is more complex than a simple black and white model, as these new social roles of gender is a spectrum of grays or colors.
How do you curate a list like this? #4 is 'Apache Helicopter' which is the subject of a well-known copypasta. 'Dickbutt' and 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince' seem suspect as well.
If I remove them, then people will give me trouble for removing them, or not adding them in the first place.
I asked for scientific proof of each gender, but apparently, there is none. Since it is a social construct, I am told that those names are legit for genders, and apparently, some Redditors made some names that should not have gone in, but if I didn't add them I'd be doxed, etc. It is also a way to find out of someone stole the list, that is the way the Trivial Pursuit people did by adding questions with wrong answers, etc.
ah yes, those famous evolutionary biological factors diminishing womens' interest in computers that only started showing up right around 1985 and didn't proportionately affect any other field for some reason since computer science is completely unique in its demands on the female brain.
I think 1985 is the golden age of the 8 bit home computer from Atari and Commodore to dump the main computer on the market for under $300 or $200 and make up for it by selling disk drives, etc at a higher cost. The Apple //c and IBM PCjr came out around the same time. Marketed to boys and not girls. Something to do with video games in the mid1970s that fueled the race to make an 8 bit home computer, or rather a cheaper home computer than the rest.
I talked to some women who grew up in that era, most of them claim teachers, leaders, etc told them they could not do math science as well as boys to get into liberal arts instead of computer science, etc. Somehow the education system pushed the females away from computer science and pushed boys towards computer science as well.
Computer Science used to be dominated by women in the 1950s and 1960s. Let me cite the website your image comes from so we can get a background on it:
When you look at it in black and white as males and females, you are considered to be a bigot or sexist by SJWs. There is this gender studies thing that says gender is a social construct, etc which just clobbered Google and James Damore. In a way this is politics, culture, and society trying to push back against white males that dominate STEM and Computer Science etc. Of course the same people who want all of the other genders having these good paying jobs don't understand that males study computers, programming, technology in the same way females and others study fashion, social skills, makeup tips, clothing, etc.
Most males just wear a jeans and t-shirt and then tennis shoes. Albert Einstien used to say picking each clothes every day is a waste of time, so he had many copies of the same suits and clothes so he didn't have to choose each day. Males shower, go to the bathroom, and shave and brush teeth in 15 minutes in the morning, and females and other genders have to pick clothes, apply makeup, comb hair, use toilet, shower, brush teeth, and other stuff that may take over an hour. This is due to what society claims males and females (and others) have to do to get their looks, culture, social roles, etc. So it is a male dominated society run by females?
Well anyway, we have to find a way to encourage females and other non-male, non-binary, etc genders to study computer science the way males study it. It is a lot of work, and heavily in politics, culture, society, etc.
(WTH? I'm voted down for citing links on the subject and giving facts?)
There's a campaign on to kill this story. You got downvoted because you cared enough to write a lot. Don't take it personal, there are powerful agendas at stake here.
It's no surprise he got the axe; there would be no tolerance nor appetite for his scientific conclusions at any large company.