Didn't we go over this in the free speech thread?

Out of curiosity, who here thinks that women are "biologically less capable of engineering"?

Does anyone? I don't think Damore has said such a thing, but I could be mistaken.

However, I do believe that there are many biologically hard wired gender dispositions and ability distributions which could easily affect the prevalence of men/women, or even their average capacities, in certain professions. I believe gender, more than sexism, plays a role in why there are so many male computer programmers and quantum physicists, and so many more female nurses and office clerks, for example. It also explains earnings gaps more than phantom patriarchal systemic sexism, IMHO.

He was, supposedly, fired for saying just that.

As for the rest, I'd agree regarding jobs requiring great physical strength...maybe.

You seem to be saying, at the most basic level, that women are inherently less intelligent than men.

IS that what you're saying?

I think that is press spin, based upon watching multiple interviews and analyses. I don't believe he said that until I see the citation.

Of course not - how did you get that from my post? It does appear to be true that IQ is distributed differnely in men than women, though, meaning that on average women are slightly more intelligent than men, but there are more and greater outliers in men than women (thus the highest and lowest IQs will tend to be men).

Additionally, there is a lot more than physical strength (maybe? Really?). The most important being the womb.

Then what's his problem?



When you said -

"I believe gender, more than sexism, plays a role in why there are so many male computer programmers and quantum physicists, and so many more female nurses and office clerks, for example."

- did you mean gender in terms of previously considered norms?

Perhaps you could flesh that out a little more.



I said maybe, because the subject reminded me of how NYC lowered the requirements on jobs that require strength - firemen and sanitation - in particular, a few decades back.

I don't know about IQ disparities, but as far as I'm concerned, women are equal to men in any area where intelligence is the only real consideration.

What's his problem? It seems that his memo was deemed politically incorrect by Google because he thought there were solid biological reasons to explain the comparative lack of women in tech, and that there were better solutions to helping get more women in tech other than Googles proposed SJW solutions. Just YouTube interviews with Damore, there's loads.

Quantum physics requires very high IQ. Because of the way IQ is distributed (thanks evolution) differently by gender it is unsurprising to have more men with that super high level of IQ than women. Another pertinent factor would be the amount of time and obsessive focus required for such demanding disciplines, as would be aptitude for mathematical reasoning. Men tend more towards obsessive focus and maths than women, it seems. And they tend to spend more time at work (work more overtime etc), especially when one reaches the age where people start having children. Hence why you see more women in part time positions, or doing less overtime etc. All this is connected to biology not sexism.

There are all other biological predispositions that tend to favour men or women, like visual spacial capacity, linguistic aptitude, patience with children, propensity towards physical violence, aesthetic preferences etc. In short, men and women are biological different - as virtually everyone basically knows.

I thought you were of the mind that businesses should be allowed to set whatever policies they want, for whatever reason.

This seems to, at best, muddy the waters -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differ......lligence

I'll stick to my opinion - evolution will catch us up.

Yes, I think private, non-monopoly businesses should be able to set their own internal policies, but they shouldn't be able to fire employees for their opinion - if you read all my posts on the relevant threads you'll notice I have been consistent with that.

Google falls foul then on two counts (under my worldview), first it is a monopoly, and more importantly they fired someone for their opinion/speech. Also, I believe criticism is fair regardless, so even if Google were not a monopoly and didn't fire him under an anti-free speech policy, they would still be fair game for criticism if not legal censure.

Yes, the science on gender difference is arguable and not settled, I have read the wiki page before posting, but also I've watched many interviews, lectures and presentations on the subject which can be found on YouTube. I think the science is such that it is likely there are gender differences which affect the workforce. Even if the science turns out to be wrong, then all Damore is guilty of is accepting sound but arguable science - that shouldn't be considered sexist nor a sackable offence.

If the science works out to show what most evolutionary biologists currently seem to accept, that men and women are different and have different altitudes, would this be sexist? Can facts be sexist? And doesn't this better explain the earnings gap more than non-existent, phantom, assumed institutional sexism! After all, the more equal and gender balanced the society the more variation in the workforce (see Scandanavian Europe) - when men/women are given free choice they naturally gravitate towards certain professions.

Some interviews with Damore:

Jordan Peterson:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2311s&v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Dave Rubin:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8

Ben Shapiro:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=319s&v=RPGXkPVw93A

TW,

Facts can't be sexist, of course, but the way they're portrayed can be.
Since it's still early regarding the proper role of females, I see no harm in seeing how things go.
At least a part of their evolution was affected by societal factors.

As far as natural gravitation is concerned, I'll just consider that evolution is ongoing.

Agreed, facts cannot be sexist - though some ideologues think otherwise.

I'm not sure what your other comments mean.

In short, I think it likely there are real gender differences, serious research is ongoing in that area, and I don't think Damore should have been fired or can be considered sexist and I thnk the press has reported it badly because of PCness.

Ideologues think otherwise about a lot of things.

What I meant was that I'm not convinced about any inherent differences between men and women on an intellectual level, given what we don't know, and the metrics used so far.

Women are different now than they were a hundred years ago. The strides that have been made are undeniable.
In a hundred years...who knows? It could be horrible, or it could be wonderful. It will probably still be somewhere in between.

As a private company Google should be able to establish just rules as to what's acceptable when working for them. Supposedly Damore knew them.

Whether or not those rules were too subjective - vague - is for the courts to decide.

I don't think that Google would fire someone in this PC age without something they could present as proof; but we'll see about that too.

Frankly this isn't a big issue for me.
If his position is that women are inherently less than when it comes to certain "types" of intellect, then I just disagree.

You think women now are different on a biological level from a hundred years ago?

I thnk we may be talking about two different things. I talking about evolutionary biology, stuff hard wired over millions of years, not minor generational variations because of culture or education etc. Human evolution has pretty much stopped on a biological level because of the way technology has removed standard environmental drivers. Nothing's going to change biologically as fast as technology. Trans humanism is more likely now than a fundamental change in our biology.

I don't know what the legal outcome of the Damore case will be, but I think it shouldnt be legal and that Google are clearly left-liberal progressive bullies. Even if they have the law on their side, they don't have morality or ethics.

He didn't have the position you refer to. The press has scapegoated him because it's lazy and PC. Watch the interviews I linked, if you want to.

So we just disagree about Google. It's just not a big enough deal to me.

I think we're all different biologically than we were a hundred years ago - we're affecting our own biology - but that's not my point.

My point is that I don't think there is any inherent difference in the intellectual ability between men and women. Any seeming biological shortcomings haven't been sufficiently proven to me.

Humans haven't evolved in any meaningful biological fashion over the past hundred years. We'll have to disagree on that.

Men and women have various biological differences that affect how they operate in the workforce, a number of which are likely psychological or intellectual. We'll have to disagree on that also.

And we disagree on Google's behaviour and whether or not it is important.

Looks like we disagree on many things

Yep, and the world didn't end.

Go figure.

Yet.

Trouble is, people who hold certain opinions cause suffering in the world. Incorrect ideas can be dangerous. So, although our disagreements are somewhat trivial, others aren't. And Damore got fired because of ideological differences.

Damore with Tucker Carlson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0G0jyQyyIM

I'm not sure how we could have since he just filed the lawsuit the day before I posted the link to the lawsuit. In regards to discussing Damore in particular, I did a search and this was the only thread his name appeared in.


Certainly not James Damore despite this being what the SJW's would like the gullible to believe. (Apparently it's working to some degree.)



Nope, he was fired for unspecified comments he made within his manifesto. I suspect Google didn't want to specify as there wasn't anything they could specifically point to that was 'fire-worthy'.

I think that makes you 0 for 3.


If you're interested in actually reading the manifesto, here's a link to it. If you can find something in it you find particularly worthy of being fired over, I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james......f3d2d05f

Good link.