We Have Met the Enemy

[zinfamous]

He asked for the mountain of evidence. What else would I do other than cite the sources for the evidence?

I am not saying that individuals should not be judged as an individual. And, these things only measure groups and not individuals. The point of the memo was to explain why we may not see parity in the work place for both biological and cultural reasons. He, perhaps flawed, tried to explain these things and give what he saw as solutions. I found no malice in what he said, and lots of science to back up his perspective. The reaction was to say that men and women are so close that they can be labeled as the same which is untrue.

As for living systems, I have actually been researching slime mold as its pretty amazing. I was actually going to pm you pretty soon about it, because I know you are far more knowledgeable about that field compared to me.

I actually don't know anything about slime molds.

 

[realibrad]

I actually don't know anything about slime molds.

Dude, you are missing out. Check out the efficiency of how it grows toward its food source. The self organizing ability is actually quite amazing. Check out what they did with it and the Tokyo train system.

 

[Perknose]

What if we do already know it?

Hubris is a disease of the intellect.

 

[Puffnstuff]

What if we do already know it?

Classic case of confirmation bias.

 

[pmv]

So men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but its invalid that women and or men might be better or worse a some jobs?

Also, what did he say that was not backed by data? Perhaps he did not link it in his document, but I do not remember anything that he said that was outside of what is and has been observed for years through studies.

From what I recall, he simply _presumed_ with no supporting argument or evidence, that the differences he referred to were intrinsic and biological, rather than themselves being a consequence of social attitudes. Such 'science' that he cited didn't support his unspoken assumption.

He also rather naively and arrogantly presumed to lecture his employers (on their own web forum) on the topic of their ideas about what they valued in an employee, something which was never likely to end well.

If the balance of power between employers and employees was more equitable in general I'd say he wouldn't have been fired for that, but as that imbalance is apparently accepted, especially by the right, I don't feel inclined to see this case as the best place to start a fight over that issue.

 

[realibrad]

From what I recall, he simply _presumed_ with no supporting argument or evidence, that the differences he referred to were intrinsic and biological, rather than themselves being a consequence of social attitudes. Such 'science' that he cited didn't support his unspoken assumption.

I posted quite a few links before, so I doubt any reasonable person looked over them all, but your claim is incorrect.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full.pdf
"Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25042764
"Gender differences in psychological processes have been of great interest in a variety of fields. While the majority of research in this area has focused on specific differences in relation to test performance, this study sought to determine the underlying neurofunctional differences observed during working memory, a pivotal cognitive process shown to be predictive of academic achievement and intelligence. Using the BrainMap database, we performed a meta-analysis and applied activation likelihood estimation to our search set. Our results demonstrate consistent working memory networks across genders, but also provide evidence for gender-specific networks whereby females consistently activate more limbic (e.g., amygdala and hippocampus) and prefrontal structures (e.g., right inferior frontal gyrus), and males activate a distributed network inclusive of more parietal regions. These data provide a framework for future investigations using functional or effective connectivity methods to elucidate the underpinnings of gender differences in neural network recruitment during working memory tasks."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17000015
"Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are male-biased and characterized by deficits in social behavior and social communication, excessive anxiety or hyperreactivity to stressful experiences, and a tendency toward repetitiveness. The purpose of this review is to consider evidence for a role for two sexually dimorphic neuropeptides, oxytocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (VP), in these features of ASD. Both VP and OT play a role in normal development. VP is androgen-dependent and of particular importance to male behavior. Excess VP or disruptions in the VP system could contribute to the male vulnerability to ASD. Alternatively, protective processes mediated via OT or the OT receptor might help to explain the relatively rare occurrence of ASD in females. Disruptions in either OT or VP or their receptors could result from genetic variation or epigenetic modifications of gene expression, especially during early development. Deficits in other developmental growth factors, such as reelin, which may in turn regulate or be regulated by OT or VP, are additional candidates for a role in ASD."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544382

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24297904

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906974

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28771393

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893061

He also rather naively and arrogantly presumed to lecture his employers (on their own web forum) on the topic of their ideas about what they valued in an employee, something which was never likely to end well.

Which is something Google promotes. Its why they have the platform in the first place. That was an ignorant statement on your part.

If the balance of power between employers and employees was more equitable in general I'd say he wouldn't have been fired for that, but as that imbalance is apparently accepted, especially by the right, I don't feel inclined to see this case as the best place to start a fight over that issue.

This started as the science behind what he said is well established, yet people felt what he said was sexist.

 

[Paratus]

This started as the science behind what he said is well established, yet people felt what he said was sexist.

This fact that men and women have biological differences that effect the brain is well established, although newer studies show it’s not as binary as you think it is. That men and women have features of their brain that to varying degrees are primarily found in the opposite gender.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-a-ldquo-female-rdquo-brain/
(Sorry the link is to an article behind a paywall and I only have it in print)

People felt that he was sexist, myself included, because he made several unsupported assumptions for his own benefit:

• That differences from social constructs (including sexism) either had no bearing on those difference or were a direct result of the biological differences.
• That of the actual differences between men and women, the male differences are more beneficial to Google.

There’s plenty of studies that show how women, starting as girls in grade school, are pushed away from STEM which is a social effect.

He provided no studies that show differences that he concluded were “male” were somehow more inherently beneficial.

World class organizations know that teams comprised entirely of the same personality types, (like all status seekers) don’t perform well. Diverse teams perform better.

 

[pmv]

I posted quite a few links before, so I doubt any reasonable person looked over them all, but your claim is incorrect.

You seem slightly confused. I referred to what he posted on google's forum. I read it, it had the flaw I mentioned. It was hardly a rigorous academic paper. What exactly is the relevance of your links to that point?

As for what google promotes - that's more up to Google to decide, than you, no? Seems they don't agree with you about what they consider acceptable for posting on such a platform. Though as I said, I wouldn't have sacked him for it if it had been up to me, as I'd have thought he merited a warning and clarification as to what was and was not considered acceptable on such a forum. But he's of the political school of thought that favours employers hiring-and-firing at will so the phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

You seem slightly confused. I referred to what he posted on google's forum. I read it, it had the flaw I mentioned. It was hardly a rigorous academic paper. What exactly is the relevance of your links to that point?

As for what google promotes - that's more up to Google to decide, than you, no? Seems they don't agree with you about what they consider acceptable for posting on such a platform. Though as I said, I wouldn't have sacked him for it if it had been up to me, as I'd have thought he merited a warning and clarification as to what was and was not considered acceptable on such a forum. But he's of the political school of thought that favours employers hiring-and-firing at will so the phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

As with anyone who knows that reason and logic and science are good things, realibrad experiences the argument as it is those things that are under attack, not his unconscious bias that causes him to use them properly. He is fighting on the right side of truth and that certainty he is right blinds him to his faulty reasoning. He conflates the certainty that truth justice and science are good things with his fixation on what he thinks they are. It becomes critical, therefore, in his mind, that he must not be wrong. It would result, he feels, in the collapse of truth to random chaos and meaninglessness. He does not have real faith, the certainty that truth can't ever lose that it is baked right into our genes.

You often hear the same argument about affirmative action. "I didn't have any slaves. Why should some Black guy get considered and maybe hired for a job I could do."

 

[realibrad]

This fact that men and women have biological differences that effect the brain is well established, although newer studies show it’s not as binary as you think it is. That men and women have features of their brain that to varying degrees are primarily found in the opposite gender.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-a-ldquo-female-rdquo-brain/
(Sorry the link is to an article behind a paywall and I only have it in print)

People felt that he was sexist, myself included, because he made several unsupported assumptions for his own benefit:

• That differences from social constructs (including sexism) either had no bearing on those difference or were a direct result of the biological differences.
• That of the actual differences between men and women, the male differences are more beneficial to Google.

There’s plenty of studies that show how women, starting as girls in grade school, are pushed away from STEM which is a social effect.

He provided no studies that show differences that he concluded were “male” were somehow more inherently beneficial.

World class organizations know that teams comprised entirely of the same personality types, (like all status seekers) don’t perform well. Diverse teams perform better.

I know I never made the claim that its binary in that women have x and me do not. Everyone has "male" and "female" traits. What qualifies them as gender specific is that the average man has a stronger ability in ability x, while a woman has a stronger ability in trait y. Its also true that a woman could have strengths in ability x that is greater than the average male, or even the "best" male.

He did not provide studies, but there are studies that back up his claims, and I linked them.

He also agrees that diversity is good for the company.

Also, can you show me where he said the two bullet points, because I do not remember and I cannot see where he said that.

 

[realibrad]

You seem slightly confused. I referred to what he posted on google's forum. I read it, it had the flaw I mentioned. It was hardly a rigorous academic paper. What exactly is the relevance of your links to that point?

As for what google promotes - that's more up to Google to decide, than you, no? Seems they don't agree with you about what they consider acceptable for posting on such a platform. Though as I said, I wouldn't have sacked him for it if it had been up to me, as I'd have thought he merited a warning and clarification as to what was and was not considered acceptable on such a forum. But he's of the political school of thought that favours employers hiring-and-firing at will so the phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

I'm not confused at all.

You said this...

"From what I recall, he simply _presumed_ with no supporting argument or evidence, that the differences he referred to were intrinsic and biological, rather than themselves being a consequence of social attitudes. Such 'science' that he cited didn't support his unspoken assumption."

He did not link the studies, but I did. There is not a presumption of an intrinsic biological difference. He also said there was both a biological difference and a cultural differences that influences men and women. I did not have the flaw you are purporting at all.

As for how google wants to run itself, that is a totally different issue from what I brought up. People say they want to follow science and evidence, but when they don't like what sciences points to, they ignore it. What the guy said about women and men is evidently true as that is what the evidence suggests.

I should also add that I fully support Google's right to fire the guy for what he did. its their company and their culture. I also disagree with the laws that they may have broken if they were hiring women over men for simply being women. If Google has a view of how many men and women should be in their company, then that is up to them.

 

[realibrad]

As with anyone who knows that reason and logic and science are good things, realibrad experiences the argument as it is those things that are under attack, not his unconscious bias that causes him to use them properly. He is fighting on the right side of truth and that certainty he is right blinds him to his faulty reasoning. He conflates the certainty that truth justice and science are good things with his fixation on what he thinks they are. It becomes critical, therefore, in his mind, that he must not be wrong. It would result, he feels, in the collapse of truth to random chaos and meaninglessness. He does not have real faith, the certainty that truth can't ever lose that it is baked right into our genes.

You often hear the same argument about affirmative action. "I didn't have any slaves. Why should some Black guy get considered and maybe hired for a job I could do."

This thread was started because the believe that science is a way to correct natural inclinations. That is, what we feel should be true might not actually be true. We are coming up against the reality that, while men and women should be treated equally under the law, we are not biologically equal when observed as different groups. Those differences, even small ones, lead to wider and wider gaps over time. This goes against the idea that women and men should be equally represented in things like the labor force.

So, I will ask you this knowing that you cannot or will not answer it directly because of the implications it would entail. Do you believe men and women's skills and personalities are influenced by not only societal but biological factors?

 

[Moonbeam]

This thread was started because the believe that science is a way to correct natural inclinations. That is, what we feel should be true might not actually be true. We are coming up against the reality that, while men and women should be treated equally under the law, we are not biologically equal when observed as different groups. Those differences, even small ones, lead to wider and wider gaps over time. This goes against the idea that women and men should be equally represented in things like the labor force.

So, I will ask you this knowing that you cannot or will not answer it directly because of the implications it would entail. Do you believe men and women's skills and personalities are influenced by not only societal but biological factors?

As I have tried to explain to you, the assumptions you hold, in this case that biological or social explanations somehow relate to the issue we are talking about here, are not relevant factors. Your boxed in point of view, the inability to shift your perspective, your blindness to a wider dimension in which a proper context appears, makes it impossible to deal with you meaningfully. You are stuck on a track that goes forward or back when the answer is not on that track.

The fact that you can’t properly frame the issue will also cause you to conclude that I am trapped by the box you are trapped in. I am not in that box and am not thus trapped. The implications you imagine aren’t real

 

[realibrad]

As I have tried to explain to you, the assumptions you hold, in this case that biological or social explanations somehow relate to the issue we are talking about here, are not relevant factors. Your boxed in point of view, the inability to shift your perspective, your blindness to a wider dimension in which a proper context appears, makes it impossible to deal with you meaningfully. You are stuck on a track that goes forward or back when the answer is not on that track.

The fact that you can’t properly frame the issue will also cause you to conclude that I am trapped by the box you are trapped in. I am not in that box and am not thus trapped. The implications you imagine aren’t real

How are you sure that it snot your perspective that is flawed and that you are boxed in? I can attempt to validate my position through argument, can you do the same for yours?

 

[Moonbeam]

How are you sure that it snot your perspective that is flawed and that you are boxed in? I can attempt to validate my position through argument, can you do the same for yours?

No

How are you sure that it snot your perspective that is flawed and that you are boxed in? I can attempt to validate my position through argument, can you do the same for yours?

I really didn’t think of it as an argument. I was trying to provide you with my perspective, thinking that you miss out on some things. It is really just my attempt to share something with you. I only try. I don’t feel a need to succeed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I had my niece crawling over me to get me to charge my Ipad so I was rushed with my last post, What I would like to add is that I think I understand the dangers a focus on the differences between men and women better than you understand why a focus on the similarities is a much safer path. It is the difference between seeing a tree and missing the forest. You laser in on the detail rather than the context generally speaking. I think you need both and are weaker in one. You seem to feel that if the differences are ignored it's somehow a threat. But I see the differences and something else, why they may be real and also how they are also irrelevant depending on the context.