And Lo, There Came A Great Bunching Of The Panties
“Everyone is allowed to share their opinion. I just hope he gets fired for it.”
Regarding the ongoing ‘Google memo’ saga, I thought I’d lift the following from yesterday’s comments:
To recap. A Google software developer with a PhD in biology writes a polite, conciliatory and politically centrist memo suggesting that there’s a leftist groupthink problem in the company that inhibits open discussion; that men and women on average have differing preferences and abilities, albeit with a large overlap, and so “diversity” policies might benefit from bearing that in mind; and that perhaps people should be treated as individuals rather than as mascots of allegedly oppressed identity groups.
This is immediately met with ludicrous and wilful mischaracterisation by “social justice” Twitter and the ‘progressive’ media, including deliberately deleting the memo’s links to supporting data; a general refusal to engage honestly with the author’s points, or in many cases even to read them; baseless accusations of every ‘ism’ going; personal doxxing; boasts of blacklisting; and demands that the author of the memo be fired for his heresy and never employed again.
On grounds that his arguments are “violently offensive” and in need of being “silenced.” He is, you see, “committing violence” with his statistics. All of which rather proves the author’s point about leftist groupthink and its reliance on distortion, intimidation and outright hysteria.
The employee in question has of course now been fired. Readers who wish to be violently offended can read the memo here.
Update:
Jordan Peterson interviews James Damore, author of the supposedly scandalous and “fascist” memo. Skip forward to 5’10:
“The thing that was disturbing to me about watching the response to you is that, so far as I can tell, there isn’t anything that you said… that violates the scientific literature as it currently stands.”
Update 2, via the comments:
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men — when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences — are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial.
Update 3:
Allum Bokhari interviews a (pseudonymous) Google employee:
Several managers have openly admitted to keeping blacklists of the employees in question, and preventing them from seeking work at other companies. There have been numerous cases in which social justice activists coordinated attempts to sabotage other employees’ performance reviews for expressing a different opinion. These have been raised to the Senior VP level, with no action taken whatsoever… For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralising, but it is also dangerous.
Update 4:
The Quillette website, which published some strong support of Mr Damore’s memo, is currently experiencing a DDoS attack. A coincidence, no doubt.
Update 5:
When Black Lives Matter hysteria hit its peak, sometime in 2015, it became taboo to criticise identity politics, and later on, it became very dangerous to criticise any member of a minority group at all (even if the criticism had nothing to do with their identity).
Allum Bokhari talks with more (pseudonymous) Google employees.
Update 6:
A compendium of gender research by Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt at Heterodox Academy:
Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google. Even if we set aside all questions about the origins of these differences, the fact remains that there are gender differences in a variety of traits, and especially in interest/enjoyment (rather than ability) in the adult population from which Google and all other tech firms recruit.… Damore was drawing attention to empirical findings that seem to have been previously unknown or ignored at Google.
Unknown or ignored. By our self-imagined betters.
Update 7:
And for those with a taste for irony, here’s video of a talk by Michael Gurian, titled Leadership and the Sexes, given at Google HQ nine years ago. Curiously, the topic of psychological and neurological gender differences was, not too long ago, deemed suitable for discussion by Google management and employees, and indeed advantageous. During the talk, none of the ladies present seem particularly outraged, or oppressed, or in need of a fainting couch.
Update 8:
A Primer On Statistics to Help Quell Your Outrage at the Google Memo.
“…trying to keep this thread alive, since 8th August 2017…”
Radiation from the ‘Number 300 Shot’ killed many, but somehow a few of us survived. I feel … different. Changed. Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread. Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters, and give thanks to our Bomblord, David, may he detonate forever.
Hadn’t noticed that someone else was using the same profile pic.
As I’m sure you’re aware, Ace’s place doesn’t allow for the use of a user pic, but one of the gents who co-blogs there from time to time uses that picture on his Twitter profile. Suspected it was coincidence, now confirmed.
From 18-1 over at Ace, on the Vogue Chelsea Manning cover:
[…] Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread. Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters […]
I don’t often get a chance to do this, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSFR43Z600
Gawd bless thee, Richard Stanley, you eccentric bastard.
I feel … different. Changed.
You didn’t listen to Bert, some of us are fine.
I feel… different. Changed. Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread.
Check for superpowers. All those gamma rays must have done something.
Back to the original topic…heh.
Check for superpowers. All those gamma rays must have done something.
Yeah…yep…sure did…thanks for that…
I know, credit note only.
Did I mention I’m bored?
There’s more of that excellence here: https://twitter.com/adra21/status/896014777725575170
I suspect Sabo.
There are four lights
Just wondering… what if you went along with the torturer, agreeing fairly early on that the answer was whatever they said it was?
In other words, what if you pretend to be agreeable to their demands — or pretend to be broken when you’re not? Would they figure it out and keep on torturing?
Or would they release you, satisfied that you were duly reeducated, and you carry on in your merry way with your mind and soul intact?
Even MOAR guerrilla art. Now I suspect not Sabo but Apple recruitment. https://twitter.com/AlexRubalcava/status/896029916558270464
In other words, what if you pretend to be agreeable to their demands — or pretend to be broken when you’re not? Would they figure it out and keep on torturing?
Or would they release you, satisfied that you were duly reeducated, and you carry on in your merry way with your mind and soul intact?
You’re clearly not going to make it to 400 comments. You have been re-educated. Just give up now.
Just wondering… what if you went along with the torturer
I suspect it has much to do with the experience level of the torturer. An experienced torturer would realize that becoming broken was the important thing, and would continue to press misery long after apparent assent and somewhat past apparent breaking, with the assent given as an additional point of pressure. Just in case.
A more foolish torturer would, as you say, fail to seal the deal.
A good example of experienced torturer vs. clever victim can be seen in Farscape, with Stark and Scorpius.
CONFIRMED: It’s Sabo — https://twitter.com/unsavoryagents
This article has more photos from Sabo, plus some of his comments: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-mocked-street-art-office-1028914
There’s also, of course, the sense in which even false assent degrades the spirit in a way they want…
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/08/07/refuse-to-accept-the-lies–before-it-is-too-late-n2365296
This article has more photos from Sabo…
As funny as the signs are, I’d be willing to bet that Apple is as much of a hive mind as google, and that Damore would have gotten canned over there too.
Not all correct, but blimey, the NYT:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html
but blimey, the NYT
Lots of comments there (over 2,000 as I write this). I didn’t read any of them, but I’d be willing to bet that at least a significant minority are calling for the NYT to fire Brooks:-P.
Thanks, I tried to find something newer. Oddly, your link is broken, even though there is no apparent reason it should be.
My son and I love this.
Women watching? Somewhere south of zero.
Coincidence? I think not.
Thanks, I tried to find something newer. Oddly, your link is broken, even though there is no apparent reason it should be.
This is possibly the most polite thread I’ve ever been involved in. I didn’t post the link, but if you remove the final full point you will achieve relief.
373rd!
Ha! Eat my dust!
I don’t often get a chance to do this, but:
“>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSFR43Z600
Thank you Ian, loved it. Tells our story.
Thank you Ian, loved it. Tells our story.
I appreciate your thanks, and I know, now, that you really get it. But I’m not sure. Could you possibly elaborate, over (say) 27 comments?
You’re clearly not going to make it to 400 comments. You have been re-educated. Just give up now.
Interesting advice. I’ll consider it.
This is possibly the most polite thread I’ve ever been involved in.
I think it’s one of the Lodge Hall rules. Right after this one:
Not to mention, there are two genders….
I disagree. In English, there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. In Biology, our species has two sexes: male and female.
I disagree.
That is just because you are not woke. It is unclear whether regrooving can correct this.
It is unclear whether regrooving can correct this.
It is, indeed, unclear. I wonder what the others might think.
2
a : sex the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
One gender/sex is empowered by nature to create the sperm and can walk from the process and one is empowered by nature to create the egg and nurture and produce the offspring. Yes, there exists hermaphroditism/intersex which, except in the rarest circumstances, cannot reproduce.
There are four lights. We can argue if you can ever have exactly four of anything. If the number of photons coming from one set of “three” lights might exceed the number of photons eminating from “four” lights. We can argue that oral sex isn’t really sex. We can say we didn’t wipe the server with a cloth so therefore we didn’t wipe the server. Anyone can claim to be African American because, hey, we all came from Africa.
While I’m at it, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
OK, that last bit was TMI, but you get the idea.
OK, that last bit was TMI, but you get the idea.
Remember, it’s the number of comments, not the number of words, that will get the baton across the line.
“Here’s an article in the Atlantic by a woman who was in IT…”
McMegan hasn’t been at The Atlantic for a while. No matter, you got the link right, and I’m just trying to up the comment count.
Remember, it’s the number of comments, not the number of words, that will get the baton across the line.
Well, I did consider breaking that into a couple posts but I got on a roll and forgetted. I blame the gin. This should make up for it, though.
This should make up for it, though.
It’s a start.
I blame the gin.
At this hour? You should have switched to whiskey.
At this hour? You should have switched to whiskey.
Well, it was earlier. And I cut it with vodka. Whiskey is for cooler weather. It’s humid and hot AF down here right now.
Also, had dicentra’s earlier link opened but never looked at it until now. Interesting how many “smart” people have no idea that there’s a Venice in California. I understand being ignorant of the fact but to question why signs in “Venice” were in English, not to mention the broad streets and dearth of boats. It’s not like southern CA is some media backwater. I mean, they’re supposedly “smart” people.
What’s this put us at? 387?
It’s humid and hot AF down here right now.
Ain’t you got no air conditioning?
On the one hand, the feminists claim that there are no differences between men and women (and that sex/gender is a “social construct” rather than a biological reality) and therefore a dearth of (say) women in corporate boardrooms is indicative of discrimination.
On the other hand, they also claim that women are more “nurturing” and the like – including that adding more women in the boardroom brings a different perspective (and allegedly higher profits).
These two claims contradict each other. Like all cultural Marxists, the feminists are not interested in truth or reality, only in power over others. This puts them among the lowest form of human being.
The thought that more “nurturing” women might be less inclined to become corporate directors does not occur to them. And when you point it out to them, they put their hands over their ears and sing “la la la I can’t hear you”, or tell you to go f*** yourself.
Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters, and give thanks to our Bomblord, David, may he detonate forever.
Glory be to the bomb, and to the holy fallout, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
—Actually, I was remembering Praise Bomb from whom all blessing flooooow . . . but that might have been from a novelization.
. . . O’Brien watched him . . .
I’m currently reading Melvyn Bragg’s bio of Richard Burton, where even early on in the book there is commentary on Burton popping up to do 1984.
In other news, there’s a paywalled op-ed by the nominal subject of this discussion. Most, if not all of it, can be found here.
This is possibly the most polite thread I’ve ever been involved in.
[ Discreetly slides coaster under Ian’s drink. ]
So [covering up his shame at having potentially damaged the host’s coffee-table copy of Maps of Meaning], is it just me or does it seem that the war of words is turning in our hero’s favour? Several writers have been pointing out, quite convincingly, that the other side have overplayed their hand in those early media reports about the incident, whilst The Survey Says that the decision was a bad one. Meanwhile, claims of bullying by Milo and the like don’t appear to be gaining traction.
There’s a post about the NYT Brooks piece here:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2017/david-brooks-being-clueless-again/
Where the lie us repeated:
‘Damore is “championing scientific research” only in the sense that he used the words; he didn’t actually include any citations.’
Now I’ve a question. If you follow B&W you will know that, since Trump won, the writer, never terribly stable, has completely lost her shit. Most post are foam-flecked hate rants. (I would say it’s funny but such delusional untethering from reality genuinely leaves me concerned for her mental health.)
The point is, she may well *genuinely believe* her delusions. In this case, she may well really believe it to be true that there are no citations, presumably because in her echo chamber bubble she never read anyone pointing out the deceptive editing and so never read his genuine document (and I will politely assume she has read the censored version).
So is she actually lying?
Several writers have been pointing out, quite convincingly, that the other side have overplayed their hand in those early media reports about the incident,
It’s best not to underestimate the capacity for dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness of people who declare themselves proponents of “social justice,” or the determination with which they may insert themselves into positions of leverage and potential intimidation. As noted previously, “social justice” devotees are often much more psychologically invested in their pieties and conformity, in terms of self-image, imagined virtue, and class status. Self-flattery, self-exaltation, is a powerful drug. As is an ideal camouflage for malice.
But of course other people will sometimes see this dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness, and see the kinds of personalities it attracts – and they may wonder how they, or their children, would be treated, given the opportunity.
So is she actually lying?
“Never ascribe to malice what can be put down to incompetence.”
I remember an episode a few years back where I came upon some examples of plagiarism and make-believe in what purported to be an academic-style edition of a certain 17thC manuscript. The author cited a couple of documents as “proof” that a certain thing had happened, which almost certainly had not happened: the documents in question contained things other than what he claimed. You could say he lied, expecting no-one to check his citations, but after long consideration I came to the view that he was just incredibly lazy and stupid, and that he merely wanted to believe his own claims (some of which were clearly ego-driven). The reason I came to this view is that I realised there is no clear dividing line between lying and stupidity: in fact it is almost essential to the “liar” that they believe their own lies, and the reason they come to a false belief is that their stupidity equates to being too lazy to examine all the evidence. This is why liars often lie in ways that are obvious to others and which hurt themself. They might see the contrary evidence (in this case the woman in question has probably seen or at least heard about the academic citations Damore made), but they’re so stupid/lazy that they can’t comprehend it. If these citations were pointed out then she would find ways around it, by being too angry at the person pointing it out to actually bother to check the citations, or (when looking at the paper in question) by semi-deliberately not spending the very small amount of time necessary to recognise that they are citations, or (once recognising the papers in question exist) by falling back on the notion that they’re not properly academic (being too lazy to read them to see whether they are or not); or, ultimately case, by allowing their laziness to take over entirely and refusing to discuss the subject anymore.
It’s best not to underestimate the capacity for dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness of people who declare themselves proponents of “social justice”
Oh, I really don’t underestimate their capacity for all those things: in fact I would go further, and state that those characteristics are almost indistinguishable from their belief in “social justice” (i.e., ad hoc violence). But, to carry on from my earlier point in the comment above, I do think that all of those things derive from laziness and stupidity, so I pity them too.
By the way, the corollary to my theory of lazy=stupid=lies is that the very clever people (e.g., in academia) are the ones who are really, really careful about reading everything in their field of study, no matter how seemingly trivial. This takes effort.
P.S. But the cleverest of all are the ones who know which stuff they can safely ignore, so it seems like they do no work at all.
In case anyone fancies another rebuttal of the Slate piece: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/slate-article-questions-the-veracity-of-science-because-of-the-google-document/
Are we at 400 yet?