Register to Comment
Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 258
Like Tree109Likes
  1. #191
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    94,174

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher2 View Post
    He did what you asked. Suck it up. You got “owned”.
    Okay, bro.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #192
    AyaanMyHero AyaanMyHero is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    312

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Or just a regular psychologist.
    We probably need a truth seeking phychologist that does not suffer from debilitating SJW syndrome. If such exists, would P.ie be a place they would frequent ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #193
    Orbit v2 Orbit v2 is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10,614

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    I didn’t say she defended it in its entirety. However, there is no part of the memo worth defending. The only reason Damore is interested in biological differences between men and women is to use that idea to support keeping women underrepresented in STEM.
    Well, a number of evolutionary psychologists came out and at least partially supported the memo. Who are you to say they are wrong, and presumably must be misogynists too? Why can't you just disagree with them and offer reasons for that instead of just trying to shut them down, like the protestors?

    As for Damore's supposed motivation, nobody can really know that and it's never a good basis for analysing the validity of an argument. On the broader issue of the number of women in STEM, Heying made the following observation:
    One thing I argued, after the protesters came and went, to which I would like to hear a nuanced objection, was this: Google, like the entire tech sector, has a very skewed sex ratio among its software engineers. It’s something like 4 to 1 — nearly 80% of software engineers are male. At first pass, that sounds wrong, egregiously far off the sex ratio in the population which, for well understood evolutionary reasons, tends to be 1:1. But not everyone in the population is suited to or interested in being a software engineer. If we are interested in detecting hiring bias at Google we should compare Google’s 4 to 1 ratio to the population likely to be seeking these positions. How about people earning degrees in computer science? It’s not perfect, but it’s a better match than “everyone on the planet.” Tellingly, the sex ratio of people earning degrees in computer science has hovered, for years, right around 4:1. This suggests that, at the very least, Google is hiring software engineers at the same sex ratio at which they are being produced by the universities — hardly evidence of rampant discrimination against women at Google. In fact, it’s the ratio we would expect if applicant quality was independent of sex, and Google’s hiring process was sex-blind.
    This is actually quite a familiar argument. All it's saying is that in order to improve the representation of women in STEM it's not sufficient (or even a good idea) to be biased towards women at the hiring stage. It has to start much earlier than that. The same argument is used in the discussion of quotas for politicians.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #194
    Yazmina Yazmina is offline

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,068

    The results of the Leaving certificate exams will be released this Wednesday. I keep my fingers crossed that I have got what I have to get to do my degree.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #195
    AyaanMyHero AyaanMyHero is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    312

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbit v2 View Post
    Well, a number of evolutionary psychologists came out and at least partially supported the memo. Who are you to say they are wrong, and presumably must be misogynists too? Why can't you just disagree with them and offer reasons for that instead of just trying to shut them down, like the protestors?

    As for Damore's supposed motivation, nobody can really know that and it's never a good basis for analysing the validity of an argument. On the broader issue of the number of women in STEM, Heying made the following observation:

    This is actually quite a familiar argument. All it's saying is that in order to improve the representation of women in STEM it's not sufficient (or even a good idea) to be biased towards women at the hiring stage. It has to start much earlier than that. The same argument is used in the discussion of quotas for politicians.
    Well articulated point.
    In fact, many people are invested in tackling the problem at early stages of development. Obviously such people have decided a large part of the problem arises outside third level and outside business.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #196
    AyaanMyHero AyaanMyHero is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    312

    From Heying..on the 4:1 ratio of men to women in the Good SW engineering area.

    This suggests that, at the very least, Google is hiring software engineers at the same sex ratio at which they are being produced by the universities — hardly evidence of rampant discrimination against women at Google. In fact, it’s the ratio we would expect if applicant quality was independent of sex, and Google’s hiring process was sex-blind.
    This is such a basic, simple to understand, argument that it makes me ask some questions:
    1. Why did Damore have to write a 35 page memo to explain it ?
    2. Was he guilty of not simplifying and minimizing his message for his audience ?
    3. Was he making additional points in addition ?
    4. Am I wrong to assume this is proof of Googles hiring process being relatively sex-blind ? if so, what is the ratio required for proof ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #197
    twokidsmanybruises twokidsmanybruises is offline
    twokidsmanybruises's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,984

    Quote Originally Posted by AyaanMyHero View Post
    From Heying..on the 4:1 ratio of men to women in the Good SW engineering area.



    This is such a basic, simple to understand, argument that it makes me ask some questions:
    1. Why did Damore have to write a 35 page memo to explain it ?
    2. Was he guilty of not simplifying and minimizing his message for his audience ?
    3. Was he making additional points in addition ?
    4. Am I wrong to assume this is proof of Googles hiring process being relatively sex-blind ? if so, what is the ratio required for proof ?
    1. I haven't read the memo, but if it's written to be a robust argument, a lot of of those pages would be needed to show how the statistical data was collected and how it was analysed. You can't make assumptions in academic writing and official reports, and it is not the reader's job to infer meaning. How the information is sourced, analysed and connected has to be explicitly stated, step by step. This takes quite a lot of pages and is necessary, even if it doesn't make for a thrilling read.

    2. Again, to decide if he simplified the conclusions of the study, we'd have to read the whole study, not just his paraphrasing of the abstract and/or conclusion.

    3. Not explicitly, although the reader might infer additional points. But the only points that are "made" are those that are explicitly stated and backed up with explicit sources, analysis and conclusion.

    4. It's not a proof, it's a theory. A fairly solid one, but only a theory. There could be other ways to interpret the data. For example, the conclusion is that, in the area of software engineering, the ratio of male to female hires matches the ratio of male to female graduates, so the 4:1 ratio of hires is "gender-blind" and the ratio is established at university level. But, if say there was data to show that the vast majority of female graduates apply for jobs at google rather than to other firms, then there might be a gender bias in hiring. We don't know, because we don't have that data, but such data would weaken the theory that there is no gender bias in Google's hiring.

    All of above are just examples. I have absolutely no knowledge on whether there is such a hiring bias at Google, and I don't have the information ( or motivation to source the information ) to have an informed opinion.

    A hypothesis is not a theory, and a theory is not a proven fact. But this doesn't mean that a hypothesis or a theory is not a useful or worthwhile thing to establish.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #198
    Volatire Volatire is offline
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    12,138

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Imagine thinking that the mere concept of “marginal and vulnerable groups” is “claptrap”.
    Your tedious misrepresentations illustrate a common fact about nearly all lefties. They see those on the right as evil people. Evil.

    The rights view of those the left is more banal. I see most lefties as mere dangerous fools.

    And I am very, very hard right, that I can tell you.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #199
    Ratio Et Fides Ratio Et Fides is offline
    Ratio Et Fides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    32,408

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    And I am very, very hard right, that I can tell you.
    Are you? In many ways you are not.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #200
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    94,174

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbit v2 View Post
    Well, a number of evolutionary psychologists came out and at least partially supported the memo. Who are you to say they are wrong, and presumably must be misogynists too? Why can't you just disagree with them and offer reasons for that instead of just trying to shut them down, like the protestors?

    As for Damore's supposed motivation, nobody can really know that and it's never a good basis for analysing the validity of an argument. On the broader issue of the number of women in STEM, Heying made the following observation:

    This is actually quite a familiar argument. All it's saying is that in order to improve the representation of women in STEM it's not sufficient (or even a good idea) to be biased towards women at the hiring stage. It has to start much earlier than that. The same argument is used in the discussion of quotas for politicians.
    Experts came out on the other side too, so an appeal to expertise isn’t going to work in this case. I don’t know why or how you think I’m trying to “shut them down”. I’m just some randomer on the internet.

    As for his motivation, we can know it with a reasonable degree of certainty, because we can infer his motivations from his behaviour.

    The argument you highlight is a silly argument - it aims to get Google off the hook by placing the responsibility entirely on the universities, despite the obvious fact that Google is not obliged to hire females to males at the same ratio that they are receiving degrees from universities. If you have two posts and ten suitable candidates, three of which are women, for example, there is nothing stopping you hiring two of those women for the job.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment