I don't believe in the chaos theory. Maybe in art, maybe in video games. But not government. I'm aware that for alot of people, they thought Trump was like throwing a wrench in the machine. Fair enough. But what happens when you throw a wrench in a machine is that.....in all likelihood, you break the machine. And it turns out, we need that machine for many things, not the least of which is that a well-running machine makes sure US territories aren't being threatened with missile strikes.
Obama being holier than though?? He was certainly, as one would say, too cool for school at certain times, though I wouldn't call it blatant arrogance. Anyone who wants to be President certainly has a healthy ego. But he also had the nickname "No Drama Obama". And while that was mostly a term from his staff for how he liked to run things, it also filtered down to the populace. It was easy during the 8 years Obama was in office to, even if you didn't like him, to not hear a thing about Obama for a couple weeks at a time, especially if you didn't follow politics. Obama wasn't seeking to wear down the entire country by dominating every single news cycle. When he sent out a tweet, it was probably to give praise to a recently deceased entertainer, or offer sympathy to the victims of a tragedy. He had something that is called class, and I still (and will always feel) that many people never got over the idea of a black man in the White House, and became even more enraged when it turned out he conducted himself, on a personal level, in the exact opposite way as their stereotypes of African-Americans would have had them believe. And they elected Donald Trump as a reaction.
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
You have two people equally qualified for a single position. Which of the two do you hire?
The first one who applied.
Doing this can set up charges of nepotism as grapevine candidates (people already attached directly or indirectly to the company) are then given preferred treatment.
It can also lead to religious discrimination you are hiring the person who applies on Saturday if a job posting was made on Friday.
This can also lead to higher turnover in the company as even though the candidate is qualified for the position, either doesn't perform well for other reasons, or isn't an ideal fit for them, having them move on. High turnover can be expensive for a company as training new people.
This is why, for a majority of positions posted, there is a closing date. This allows all candidates who are interested in the position have an equal opportunity to get a selected for the position.
Seems like sometimes companies might already have someone in mind and are just going through the motions of sayin "Yeah, we advertised for the position".
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
You have two people equally qualified for a single position. Which of the two do you hire?
The first one who applied.
Doing this can set up charges of nepotism as grapevine candidates (people already attached directly or indirectly to the company) are then given preferred treatment.
It can also lead to religious discrimination you are hiring the person who applies on Saturday if a job posting was made on Friday.
This can also lead to higher turnover in the company as even though the candidate is qualified for the position, either doesn't perform well for other reasons, or isn't an ideal fit for them, having them move on. High turnover can be expensive for a company as training new people.
This is why, for a majority of positions posted, there is a closing date. This allows all candidates who are interested in the position have an equal opportunity to get a selected for the position.
If you already work for a company wouldn't it make sense if you could continue to advance your position though? Never hiring from inside seems likes its punishing your employees. "Come work for us and go nowhere!"
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
You have two people equally qualified for a single position. Which of the two do you hire?
Sorta. Internal positions and promotions still create job openings lower down the corporate ladder though. If there is more than one candidate qualified for the position, you may be surprised that this position has a higher chance of going to the minority in the U.S. to comply with EEO laws.
But internal employees may not be the best fit for the position that has opened up. You may entertain the notion of giving them an interview and telling them in which areas they need to improve on to be considered for this position if it becomes available again, so you still may need to look externally to fill it.
Bob, from marketing knows this entry level position is opening so he tells his daughter about it before it is posted giving her advance knowledge that others do not have. This is the prefferrd treatment I am talking about when dealing with first applied, first hired practises.
As much as many people like to think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, an overwhleming number of people get their jobs because of recommendations given by family and friends, or, as mentioned above, inside information about positions open that haven't yet been advertised to the public. Who you know will beat out skill very often.
Sorta. Internal positions and promotions still create job openings lower down the corporate ladder though. If there is more than one candidate qualified for the position, you may be surprised that this position has a higher chance of going to the minority in the U.S. to comply with EEO laws.
But internal employees may not be the best fit for the position that has opened up. You may entertain the notion of giving them an interview and telling them in which areas they need to improve on to be considered for this position if it becomes available again, so you still may need to look externally to fill it.
Bob, from marketing knows this entry level position is opening so he tells his daughter about it before it is posted giving her advance knowledge that others do not have. This is the prefferrd treatment I am talking about when dealing with first applied, first hired practises.
Your previous question was what do you do when you have two EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants though. If the internal employee is not the best fit, they aren't as qualified then.
Another modern day Klan rally going on in Charlottesville, VA tonight. I'll point out that their free speech rights aren't being violated. No one is rounding them up and taking them to jail. You know what else isn't a violation of their rights?? Other people taking pictures of them and shaming them in public. This is what the "free speech" movement of the Alt-right has led to. White supremacists descending on a college campus with torches in hand. However, I'm sure this is all the fault of the left for "pushing them too far with their intolerance". Look at all the economic anxiety of these people. You think fascism can't take hold in this country?? These people would have participated in the book burning at Opernplatz.
The bigger question is this: The White House has made very clear on numerous occasions that Trump's tweets are official statements. Donald Trump has blocked many people who have responded to him on Twitter. In his capacity as President, him blocking those people or deleting certain tweets could very well be construed as a violation of the Presidential Records Act.
Watching live coverage of Charlottesville this morning, where eyewitnesses are reporting that Alt-right Neo-Nazis are assaulting clergy members. The violent left indeed. Maybe it turns out Antifa was more necessary than I originally thought. Because the cops seem to be doing absolutely nothing.
Watching live coverage of Charlottesville this morning, where eyewitnesses are reporting that Alt-right Neo-Nazis are assaulting clergy members. The violent left indeed. Maybe it turns out Antifa was more necessary than I originally thought. Because the cops seem to be doing absolutely nothing.
They'll probably arrest a black guy or two later after the hordes of white neo-nazis leave
Let me be clear: Those torch-wielding freaks last night were marching towards a church where a group was participating in a prayer service at the time. They marched and descended on that church in an act of terror and intimidation, giving the impression that they could burn it down if they choose to do so. While marching, they were chanting "blood and soil", which isn't some random slogan, but was, in fact, the official motto of the Nazi Agriculture Department.
I said a year ago during the primaries in this thread that Donald Trump was tapping into powers that, once unleashed, could not be put back in the bottle. Here they are.
We've had a similar discussion not long ago. I don't disagree that there is discrimination and, yes, I think that can be justified. In moral terms if you believe that, in the absence of discrimination, genders would be equally represented in a particular workforce then all you're doing is counter-acting existing discriminatory forces. I accept that not everyone does believe that, but I think the majority do.
This here is where I think our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that there is reason to believe that, in the absence of discriminatory forces, that a given employment field will naturally be highly representative of the demographics of the wider society. I see compelling reasons, whether cultural or biological, for some segments in society to prefer certain things in life and pursue those things more often than other groups. That's not discrimination by others, that's ones own free choices in action. As such, I do not believe it is counter-acting existing forces of discrimination, but creating them.
All i'm seeing in my news feed is Charlottesville. This is what identity politics escalation looks like. I don't see this going away any time soon as the alt right and the SJW left seem determined to double down on identity based ideology.
This here is where I think our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that there is reason to believe that, in the absence of discriminatory forces, that a given employment field will naturally be highly representative of the demographics of the wider society. I see compelling reasons, whether cultural or biological, for some segments in society to prefer certain things in life and pursue those things more often than other groups. That's not discrimination by others, that's ones own free choices in action. As such, I do not believe it is counter-acting existing forces of discrimination, but creating them.
I'm not sure how fundamental our disagreement is. I don't disagree that there are biological differences between the sexes and that those can be expected to cause differences in representation in particular fields of life. Personally I don't believe the differences are significant enough to cause the 80/20 split seen in Google engineering, but I accept that's something that's difficult to prove in the short term. I would though point out you referred to cultural and biological differences and this may account for our difference of opinion - one person's view of something as a cultural difference could no doubt be viewed by another as discrimination.
We've had a similar discussion not long ago. I don't disagree that there is discrimination and, yes, I think that can be justified. In moral terms if you believe that, in the absence of discrimination, genders would be equally represented in a particular workforce then all you're doing is counter-acting existing discriminatory forces. I accept that not everyone does believe that, but I think the majority do.
This here is where I think our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that there is reason to believe that, in the absence of discriminatory forces, that a given employment field will naturally be highly representative of the demographics of the wider society. I see compelling reasons, whether cultural or biological, for some segments in society to prefer certain things in life and pursue those things more often than other groups. That's not discrimination by others, that's ones own free choices in action. As such, I do not believe it is counter-acting existing forces of discrimination, but creating them.
All i'm seeing in my news feed is Charlottesville. This is what identity politics escalation looks like. I don't see this going away any time soon as the alt right and the SJW left seem determined to double down on identity based ideology.
Ahhh....now it's both sides, since even you can't find a way to defend this, but also can't admit where the problem actually lies. The Alt-right literally descended upon a prayer service being held in a church last night with torches, and today showed up dressed in riot gear from the get-go. I saw a pastor get shoved on live TV. Blaming the "SJW left" for this Nazi rally is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
This here is where I think our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that there is reason to believe that, in the absence of discriminatory forces, that a given employment field will naturally be highly representative of the demographics of the wider society. I see compelling reasons, whether cultural or biological, for some segments in society to prefer certain things in life and pursue those things more often than other groups. That's not discrimination by others, that's ones own free choices in action. As such, I do not believe it is counter-acting existing forces of discrimination, but creating them.
I'm not sure how fundamental our disagreement is. I don't disagree that there are biological differences between the sexes and that those can be expected to cause differences in representation in particular fields of life. Personally I don't believe the differences are significant enough to cause the 80/20 split seen in Google engineering, but I accept that's something that's difficult to prove in the short term. I would though point out you referred to cultural and biological differences and this may account for our difference of opinion - one person's view of something as a cultural difference could no doubt be viewed by another as discrimination.
Which is exactly why this whole train of thought is subjective. There is no way to prove discrimination, barring an outright admission of it, but people's lives and reputations can be irreparably harmed by accusations of it. What is the remedy? I haven't got a clue...
Not all forms of discrimination have an easy answer, but there is an extremely easy way to prevent discrimination in the hiring process: the company can just remove names and race- or gender-identifying information in resumes before reviewing them.
Studies have already found that when you remove names from resumes you're considering, the gender and racial disparity largely disappears. Some companies already do this. This way, only in-person interviews offer even the possibility of discrimination.
You can't discriminate against somebody based on their race or sex if you don't yet know what their race or sex is. This is a simple fix for discrimination in the hiring process that (1) doesn't require any form of "reverse" discrimination and (2) doesn't cost a dime.
Which is exactly why this whole train of thought is subjective. There is no way to prove discrimination, barring an outright admission of it, but people's lives and reputations can be irreparably harmed by accusations of it. What is the remedy? I haven't got a clue...
Discrimination may be difficult to prove at an individual level, but that's not what my argument is about. In most cases I'm not suggesting that differences are the result of active discrimination anyway, but simply the perpetuation of existing cultural factors. The evidence seems pretty clear to me that it is in fact cultural factors rather than biological ones that are driving the differences at the whole population level. You can see that for instance in the significantly higher proportions of women in ICT in Eastern European countries or have a look at this graph showing the change in proportion of women in various intellectual fields over time - reflecting that it is only in recent years that computing has come to be seen as a 'man's field'.
As to what to do about it, I think Google have the right idea. If it is cultural factors that are putting women off (and if you believe, as Google do, that this results in a poorer workforce), the answer is to change the culture. That can be done for instance by: - stating a belief in the equality of the sexes - as Google has - and then living up to that statement (and the need to do the latter was the problem for Damore). - giving active encouragement to women to help them challenge and overcome the existing cultural barriers.
Comments
Obama being holier than though?? He was certainly, as one would say, too cool for school at certain times, though I wouldn't call it blatant arrogance. Anyone who wants to be President certainly has a healthy ego. But he also had the nickname "No Drama Obama". And while that was mostly a term from his staff for how he liked to run things, it also filtered down to the populace. It was easy during the 8 years Obama was in office to, even if you didn't like him, to not hear a thing about Obama for a couple weeks at a time, especially if you didn't follow politics. Obama wasn't seeking to wear down the entire country by dominating every single news cycle. When he sent out a tweet, it was probably to give praise to a recently deceased entertainer, or offer sympathy to the victims of a tragedy. He had something that is called class, and I still (and will always feel) that many people never got over the idea of a black man in the White House, and became even more enraged when it turned out he conducted himself, on a personal level, in the exact opposite way as their stereotypes of African-Americans would have had them believe. And they elected Donald Trump as a reaction.
It can also lead to religious discrimination you are hiring the person who applies on Saturday if a job posting was made on Friday.
This can also lead to higher turnover in the company as even though the candidate is qualified for the position, either doesn't perform well for other reasons, or isn't an ideal fit for them, having them move on. High turnover can be expensive for a company as training new people.
This is why, for a majority of positions posted, there is a closing date. This allows all candidates who are interested in the position have an equal opportunity to get a selected for the position.
Imma also going to put this here: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like-google/ as an insight to how Google does/did its hiring.
Maybe teenagers bury their parents instead of cremating them so they can rot.
But internal employees may not be the best fit for the position that has opened up. You may entertain the notion of giving them an interview and telling them in which areas they need to improve on to be considered for this position if it becomes available again, so you still may need to look externally to fill it.
Bob, from marketing knows this entry level position is opening so he tells his daughter about it before it is posted giving her advance knowledge that others do not have. This is the prefferrd treatment I am talking about when dealing with first applied, first hired practises.
Another modern day Klan rally going on in Charlottesville, VA tonight. I'll point out that their free speech rights aren't being violated. No one is rounding them up and taking them to jail. You know what else isn't a violation of their rights?? Other people taking pictures of them and shaming them in public. This is what the "free speech" movement of the Alt-right has led to. White supremacists descending on a college campus with torches in hand. However, I'm sure this is all the fault of the left for "pushing them too far with their intolerance". Look at all the economic anxiety of these people. You think fascism can't take hold in this country?? These people would have participated in the book burning at Opernplatz.
I said a year ago during the primaries in this thread that Donald Trump was tapping into powers that, once unleashed, could not be put back in the bottle. Here they are.
This here is where I think our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that there is reason to believe that, in the absence of discriminatory forces, that a given employment field will naturally be highly representative of the demographics of the wider society. I see compelling reasons, whether cultural or biological, for some segments in society to prefer certain things in life and pursue those things more often than other groups. That's not discrimination by others, that's ones own free choices in action. As such, I do not believe it is counter-acting existing forces of discrimination, but creating them.
All i'm seeing in my news feed is Charlottesville. This is what identity politics escalation looks like. I don't see this going away any time soon as the alt right and the SJW left seem determined to double down on identity based ideology.
Studies have already found that when you remove names from resumes you're considering, the gender and racial disparity largely disappears. Some companies already do this. This way, only in-person interviews offer even the possibility of discrimination.
You can't discriminate against somebody based on their race or sex if you don't yet know what their race or sex is. This is a simple fix for discrimination in the hiring process that (1) doesn't require any form of "reverse" discrimination and (2) doesn't cost a dime.
As to what to do about it, I think Google have the right idea. If it is cultural factors that are putting women off (and if you believe, as Google do, that this results in a poorer workforce), the answer is to change the culture. That can be done for instance by:
- stating a belief in the equality of the sexes - as Google has - and then living up to that statement (and the need to do the latter was the problem for Damore).
- giving active encouragement to women to help them challenge and overcome the existing cultural barriers.