“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

jackofalltrades

kylith wrote: »

Google's 'positive discrimination' these days will pave the way for more girls and young women to see programming as a potential career in the future.

While I agree that hiring a person to do a job solely because of their gender is generally not a good thing, doing things like running women-only events can only attract more women to the career, and that is a good thing.

Every time some is positively discriminated for, someone is also negatively discriminated against.
Which creates resentment amongst people and rightly so.
It seems odd that people who are so driven to end discrimination want to use it as a tool against others.
It would make you seriously question their motivations.

By all means encourage women into IT, but it shouldn't be done by disadvantaging men.

Bob24

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Every time some is positively discriminated for, someone is also negatively discriminated against.
Which creates resentment amongst people and rightly so.

On top of that it also tends to cast doubts over the abilities of individual members of the group it is trying to help.

Lets say a woman is definitely the most qualified applicant for a job and logically gets hired. If the company has positive discrimination policies in place and the woman is joining a male dominated business function, her new colleagues will tend to wonder whether she was hired because she was the best applicant or because the manager of the team needed a woman to reach their positive discrimination quota (which is totally unfair to her as she was indeed the best person for the job, but on the other hand is a valid question to ask because it could be the case that she was hired to meet quotas and her colleagues don't know that as the process will tend to be secretive to make sure no-one can find out).

It was a while ago and at the time I was a bit too young to be fully intellectually equipped to understand these things, but I actually very clearly remember that specific issue being dealt with in an episode the TV series ER whereby a black doctor makes a point of saying he didn't thick the afro-american box on his med school application as he wanted to make sure he was judged by the same standard as everyone else so that there is no doubt about his abilities. I think I remember it well after circa 20 years because at the time this thing sounded so alien to me: from a European teenager's perspective it sounded unthinkable that admission requirements could vary depending on someone's skin colour. But I guess we are getting Americanised and now we have to debate about these things ...

professore

B0jangles wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Good question.

Could it be because women care more what others think of them than men?

What does that even mean in that context?

More men don't care about being labelled geeks than women?

professore

B0jangles wrote: »

professore wrote: »

It's funny that the modern US liberal viewpoint seems to be that men are bungling idiots while women are brilliant at everything, yet men and women are completely identical in every way and any challenge to that idea is sexist if a white male says it. Crazy I tells ya.

Who is saying that?

Personally I've done my best to back up anything I've said with as much data as I can find. Most of what is coming back is a mass of personal opinions which mostly seem to be of the type 'Men do X, Women do Y' as a basic and eternal truth, followed by a lot of arguing backwards from that 'fact' to justify that opinion, plus repeated instructions to 'Read the Memo'.

I'm not sure why or when a programmer working in Google became such an unassailable authority on gender representation in the tech industry?

Did you notice this is After Hours?

professore

Look, personally speaking, I don't believe women as a group aren't on average as capable of say programming as men are. I just think that women as a group are less interested in programming. This is not down to social conditioning. My own daughter did an excellent leaving certificate including an A in honours maths and is pursuing a biology related degree now.

I asked her why she didn't do computer science or engineering and she said it didn't interest her. This is despite having a mum who is an engineer and a dad who works in IT, and both of us always spoke positively to her about both fields. Of her high achieving female friends, they are all in fields like medicine, pharmacy and law. most of her male friends are in IT or engineering. Should they be forced to swap?

If people are honest this is replicated all over the country and indeed the world.

Why is this controversial? I don't understand.

kylith

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Every time some is positively discriminated for, someone is also negatively discriminated against.
Which creates resentment amongst people and rightly so.
It seems odd that people who are so driven to end discrimination want to use it as a tool against others.
It would make you seriously question their motivations.

By all means encourage women into IT, but it shouldn't be done by disadvantaging men.

But having, for example, women-only training days doesn't disadvantage men at all. Just because someone else gets something it doesn't mean something is taken away from you.

professore

kylith wrote: »

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Every time some is positively discriminated for, someone is also negatively discriminated against.
Which creates resentment amongst people and rightly so.
It seems odd that people who are so driven to end discrimination want to use it as a tool against others.
It would make you seriously question their motivations.

By all means encourage women into IT, but it shouldn't be done by disadvantaging men.

But having, for example, women-only training days doesn't disadvantage men at all. Just because someone else gets something it doesn't mean something is taken away from you.

Of course it does. Back in the old days it was men doing deals on the golf course where women weren't allowed. This is the same thing in reverse. Unless of course the training is useless.

Pero_Bueno

Probably linked allready, AMA on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesDamore/comments/6thcy3/im_james_damore_ama/

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

I have a few but first lets ask the obvious questions, because the answers dictate whether or not I'll have to use finger puppets to phrase the next questions for ye

You realise that Bernie Sanders didn't run in the Presidential election?

Yes

You realise that the democratic presidential candidate is not selected by the voting public?

Yes. The delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. They reflect the preferences of people they represent.

This is basic enough stuff

Are you still confused?

Have you more questions or are you prepared to acknowledged how idiotic your ultraliberal references are? Liberal would have been a push. Do you know anything about the political spectrum?

Bob24

Wombatman wrote: »

Are you still confused?

Have you more questions or are you prepared to acknowledged how idiotic your ultraliberal references are? Liberal would have been a push. Do you know anything about the political spectrum?

Ok let's forget "Ultra" which is just semantics and depends on where someone puts the center.

If California is not at the higher end of the spectrum, could you mention which regions of the world you think are significantly more liberal than California both in terms of economic liberalism and social liberalism?

I would feel safe to rule out all of South America, Africa, and Asia (which is enough to place California firmly on the liberal side of the spectrum on a global scale). Then we only have the Western world left which I guess is in itself a liberal engine of the world - and even within that liberal subset of the world I struggle to find a significant number of regions (if any) which you could say are clearly more liberal than California.

So I would be confident enough saying that California is at the forefront of full fledged liberalism not only in the US but also globally.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

Look, personally speaking, I don't believe women as a group aren't on average as capable of say programming as men are. I just think that women as a group are less interested in programming. This is not down to social conditioning. My own daughter did an excellent leaving certificate including an A in honours maths and is pursuing a biology related degree now.

I asked her why she didn't do computer science or engineering and she said it didn't interest her. This is despite having a mum who is an engineer and a dad who works in IT, and both of us always spoke positively to her about both fields. Of her high achieving female friends, they are all in fields like medicine, pharmacy and law. most of her male friends are in IT or engineering. Should they be forced to swap?

If people are honest this is replicated all over the country and indeed the world.

Why is this controversial? I don't understand.

why are you conflating not interested with not capable? They are definitely not as interested in software development as a career but those that are every bit as capable as the guys that do it.

srsly78

professore wrote: »

If people are honest this is replicated all over the country and indeed the world.

No it isn't, seems to be a western thing.

kylith

professore wrote: »

Of course it does. Back in the old days it was men doing deals on the golf course where women weren't allowed. This is the same thing in reverse. Unless of course the training is useless.

No, it isn't.

The industry is predominantly male, so there is no need for men-only events to entice more men into it. However Google, for example, wants to open IT as a viable career path for women, who are in a minority in the industry, so there is a need for women-only events. ESPECIALLY when, as can be seen in this thread, the world is full of men saying that women are biologically unsuited to work in IT. You think many women who want to work in IT would be comfortable at training days that were full of men telling them they shouldn't be there?

If women were in a dominant position and actively conspiring to keep men out of the IT industry you'd have a point, but they're not so you don't.

silverharp

kylith wrote: »

If women were in a dominant position and actively conspiring to keep men out of the IT industry you'd have a point, but they're not so you don't.

Reversing what you have said, what men are conspiring to keep women out of IT?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

Reversing what you have said, what men are conspiring to keep women out of IT?

Sometimes this narrative is actively damaging when it comes to diversity in tech. I have worked in the industry for over 20 years. Every organisation I have worked in has been supportive of diversity and full of progressive and forward thinking people.

The truth is that if you want a stereotyupical 'bro' culture you'll find one a lot easier in the average accountancy or law firm.

The idea that there are insurmountable obstacles facing women in IT is just not really true any more. If a woman wants a career in software development she needs to learn to code. That's it. In Dublin at least decent developers remain as rare as hen's teeth and rightly or wrongly most businesses are very keen on having a decent balance of men and women on their teams.

I would hate to think that young women and girls are put off IT because they think it isn't welcoming and they will inevitably have a hard life.

kylith

silverharp wrote: »

Reversing what you have said, what men are conspiring to keep women out of IT?

I was mainly talking about those 'golf course meetings' that professore had brought up, but items such as this memo could certainly give young women starting out the impression that they would not be welcome in that career, leading to fewer entering it.

silverharp

kylith wrote: »

I was mainly talking about those 'golf course meetings' that professore had brought up, but items such as this memo could certainly give young women starting out the impression that they would not be welcome in that career, leading to fewer entering it.

girls are given a lot of encouragement to go for it so I don't see it being an issue, the overall point of the memo was to treat people as individuals but if there are less women in IT its explainable without it being anybody's fault.
Ive a son growing up and IT could be something he goes into. This whole debacle has me worried that corporate tech might discriminate against him. Should he go into an industry where he is one comment away from going on a secret blacklist?

Dyr

Wombatman wrote: »

Yes



Yes. The delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. They reflect the preferences of people they represent.

Are you still confused?

Have you more questions or are you prepared to acknowledged how idiotic your ultraliberal references are? Liberal would have been a push. Do you know anything about the political spectrum?

No I'm just glad you've confirmed that you think not voting for bernie saunders in an election he where he wasn't even on the ballot is a reliable indication of how liberal san francisco is

You've confirmed that you think that how democratic party reps vote in a dem convention(not the public) is a reliable indication of how liberal San Francisco is.

I don't have to confirm anything else really, the case rests. Thanks for that.

kylith

silverharp wrote: »

Ive a son growing up and IT could be something he goes into. This whole debacle has me worried that corporate tech might discriminate against him. Should he go into an industry where he is one comment away from going on a secret blacklist?

Should girls growing up who could go into IT be made to feel like they are biologically incapable of doing the job based on some half-wit's comments?

Dyr

kylith wrote: »

Should girls growing up who could go into IT be made to feel like they are biologically incapable of doing the job based on some half-wit's comments?

I think once they have half decent reading and comprehension skills they won't have to.

I reckon there's a generation that missed out on that front though

Bob24

kylith wrote: »

Should girls growing up who could go into IT be made to feel like they are biologically incapable of doing the job based on some half-wit's comments?

This type of hyperbole will ruin the thread (if it hasn't already done so).

Knex*

kylith wrote: »

Should girls growing up who could go into IT be made to feel like they are biologically incapable of doing the job based on some half-wit's comments?

Have you read the memo properly, or did you hear about it, form a general opinion, and then just scan through it looking for points that you could misconstrue in order to reaffirm your position?

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

No I'm just glad you've confirmed that you think not voting for bernie saunders in an election he where he wasn't even on the ballot is a reliable indication of how liberal san francisco is

You've confirmed that you think that how democratic party reps vote in a dem convention(not the public) is a reliable indication of how liberal San Francisco is.

I don't have to confirm anything else really, the case rests. Thanks for that.

I wonder how the delegates magically get chosen to represent the ultraliberal denizens of California. Could the leanings of the delegates possibly reflect the preference of the democratic party members? Could their choice of Clinton over Sanders be an indicator of how centrist - left they are?

Any more question \ nit picks or have you got any argument to suggest that California is a bastion of ultra-liberalism?

BTW above, and for the second time refer them as liberal, not ultraliberal. Do I detect a subconscious volte face?

conorhal

Wombatman wrote: »

I wonder how the delegates magically get chosen to represent the ultraliberal denizens of California. Could the leanings of the delegates possibly reflect the preference of the democratic party members? Could their choice of Clinton over Sanders be an indicator of how centrist - left they are?

Any more question \ nit picks or have you got any argument to suggest that California is a bastion of ultra-liberalism?

BTW above, and for the second time refer them as liberal, not ultraliberal. Do I detect a subconscious volte face?

Jaysus, I bet you know exactly how many angels can dance of the head of a pin....

They're 'Hillary Liberals', wealthy, connected, highly socially liberal and very into their intersectional politics but neither they or the virtue signalling companies they work for would want to pay the kind of taxes a 'Bernie Socialist' would expect of them.

Interestingly, Google's software engineers are an 80/20 male/female proportion, exactly the proportion that graduate in the field.

Bob24

conorhal wrote: »

Jaysus, I bet you know exactly how many angels can dance of the head of a pin....

They're 'Hillary Liberals', wealthy, connected, highly socially liberal and very into their intersectional politics but neither they or the virtue signalling companies they work for would want to pay the kind of taxes a 'Bernie Socialist' would expect of them.

Exactly. Full liberals socially and economically in the core meaning of the word: reduce the influence of state entities and social norms as much as possible to let each individual/private entity do its own thing (at least in theory, like even ideologies it sometimes hits internal contradictions).

Very few places in the world represent this better than California (if any, I asked for exemples and still waiting) .

They think they are politically moderate because they are coherent in their liberal views (whereas someone like Sanders would be very liberal on some aspects and not at all on others), but they are actually far from the actual ideological center. On the graph below they would lean to the bottom right from the centre and tend to be at a fairly equal distance from both axis:

(Many of them would like to think they are in the green box, but as you said the simple fact of supporting a system whereby their lifestyle is being guaranteed by a group of large trans-national corporations which are more powerful than some states and "optimise" the amount of tax they pay actually puts them firmly in the purple box)

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Look, personally speaking, I don't believe women as a group aren't on average as capable of say programming as men are. I just think that women as a group are less interested in programming. This is not down to social conditioning. My own daughter did an excellent leaving certificate including an A in honours maths and is pursuing a biology related degree now.

I asked her why she didn't do computer science or engineering and she said it didn't interest her. This is despite having a mum who is an engineer and a dad who works in IT, and both of us always spoke positively to her about both fields. Of her high achieving female friends, they are all in fields like medicine, pharmacy and law. most of her male friends are in IT or engineering. Should they be forced to swap?

If people are honest this is replicated all over the country and indeed the world.

Why is this controversial? I don't understand.

why are you conflating not interested with not capable? They are definitely not as interested in software development as a career but those that are every bit as capable as the guys that do it.

I think the awkward sentence structure can be interpreted that way, but I am saying women are every bit as capable of programming as men are. So I'm not conflating capable and interested.

professore

kylith wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

Reversing what you have said, what men are conspiring to keep women out of IT?

I was mainly talking about those 'golf course meetings' that professore had brought up, but items such as this memo could certainly give young women starting out the impression that they would not be welcome in that career, leading to fewer entering it.

Entirely due to the disgraceful reporting of the memo in the media and Google's appalling statements. Really bad fake news on the same level of antiscientific rhetoric as climate change denial or creationism. Not due to the memo itself, which was well researched and balanced.

Naively James Damore saw a problem in Google and gave his thoughts on it and made some suggestions to possible solutions, for which he was fired

professore

Interesting article in the globe and mail

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Bob24

professore wrote: »

Interesting article in the globe and mail

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Brave women to publish this in a Canadian liberal paper. She probably knows she signed-up for receiving a lot of abuse in return.

fash

B0jangles wrote: »

Also 42% of software developers were female in the late '80s in the U.S., a proportion which is close enough to a majority to be worth noticing since the proportion apparently dropped by over 50% in the following 20 years

https://stumblingpast.com/2015/10/18/women-worlds-1st-programmers/

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

one point of particular note: in more gender- egalitarian societies, human females display more female gender behaviour/interests/difference to male behaviour than in in-egalitarian societies ( i.e. they are free to be themselves- and not get into IT - in a way women in India or Iran are not).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract

Bob24

Informative enough interview with Damore (written, not video): https://reason.com/archives/2017/08/14/an-interview-with-james-damore/

He does give a few details about what made in uncomfortable about the diversity policies. Also apparently he was already receiving threats from within Google before this went viral.

Saruhashi

kylith wrote: »

Should girls growing up who could go into IT be made to feel like they are biologically incapable of doing the job based on some half-wit's comments?

I think it would be better to let them read his comments and make up their own minds.

If he didn't actually say they are biologically incapable of doing the job then they might wonder why you are trying to convince them that he did say that.

I don't think you can tell girls growing up that IT is unwelcoming to them and then expect then to have a positive attitude towards entering IT.

You could show them why this guy is wrong if his memo had an impact on their confidence or ambition but first you would need to encourage them to read the memo to see what it actually says.

What if... the IT industry is actually very welcoming to women but we are incorrectly telling young girls that it's full of people who think they are biologically inferior?

Grayson

Saruhashi wrote: »

I think it would be better to let them read his comments and make up their own minds.

That's like telling a jew they can't disagree with the protocols of zion unless they've actually read it.

Damores article is riddled with factual/scientific inaccuracies. He quotes a study to say that women are more neurotic but the author of the study even says he misread it and got it wrong. Yep, the guy who wrote the study actually says that damore is wrong in the way he interpreted it.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

So, why would anyone want to read that piece of crap.

This is a load of sexist drivel written by a fecking engineer. He's not a social scientist. He's not a psychologist. He's not even a HR specialist. He's an engineer who wanted to find science to fit in with his views so he made up some pseudo science based on some articles that he (probably) misinterpreted.

"the author of the study says he misinterpreted it"
"you're just being emotional"

Yeah okay

The Wired article actually confirms most of the science, and is guilty of exactly the same tricks that it accuses the original memo of using.

It talks about gender differences in toy preference (something for which the science really IS pretty conclusive, and confirms the experience of most parents), picks a small argument with the fact that ONE experiment was conducted on monkeys, and then moves directly to quoting someone who doesn't sound like a scientist arguing that all preference is due to socialisation.

A case of 'never mind the science and the tedious business of peer review, here's a non scientist with the correct opinion'.

Grayson

I'm dangerous to society?:rolleyes:

listen up rereg, The science is faulty. I'll not argue that there are differences in biology between men and women. If there wasn't we'd all be the same gender. However he's drawing conclusions that aren't scientifically sound.
Read the article I linked. It's not just one study. He misinterpreted loads of studies. And plenty of experts, some of them are the authors he cited, have said that he's wrong. And they've pointed out why.

Besides all the ethical considerations of what he wrote, he's simply wrong on a scientific basis. It's not about ideology. It's about actual facts.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The Wired article actually confirms most of the science, and is guilty of exactly the same tricks that it accuses the original memo of using.

It talks about gender differences in toy preference (something for which the science really IS pretty conclusive, and confirms the experience of most parents), picks a small argument with the fact that ONE experiment was conducted on monkeys, and then moves directly to quoting someone who doesn't sound like a scientist arguing that all preference is due to socialisation.

A case of 'never mind the science and the tedious business of peer review, here's a non scientist with the correct opinion'.

You might as well quote it

With the next pivot, the memo gets more pernicious. Damore switches—again, subtly—from effects to causes. His interpretation of the science around preference and ability is arguable; on causation, though, he’s even rockier. According to Damore (and a lot of research), the biological factor that connects sex to cognitive abilities and personality traits is prenatal exposure to testosterone.
Of all the high-stakes claims in sex-difference research, none is more important or more popular than the idea that hormones in the womb help give people stereotypically masculine or feminine interests. While they’re developing, males get a bigger dose of testosterone. “Among social psychologists there’s a consensus that prenatal testosterone does affect a lot of personality traits, in particular one’s interest in people versus things,” Damore said in an interview last week with Bloomberg’s Emily Chang. He also said it to pro-Trump YouTuber Stefan Molyneux, adding that hormonal exposure “explains a lot of differences in career choice.”

Damore is probably wrong about this too. The most consistent findings linking prenatal testosterone to sex-linked behaviors come from about a dozen studies examining toy preferences among girls with a condition known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which causes the overproduction of sex hormones, including testosterone. CAH-affected girls tend to be less interested in dolls (substituting for people) and more interested in toys like trucks (things).
But children with CAH have other variables. They’re often born with ambiguous genitalia and other grave medical conditions, and therefore have unusual rearing experiences. To get around this socialization issue, researchers from Emory University gave toys to young rhesus monkeys. When they saw that females preferred plush dolls and males preferred trucks, they concluded that these tendencies must be hard-wired into each sex.

Squint hard at this result, because it presumes that juvenile rhesus monkeys see stuffed animals as monkeylike but “wheeled toys” as thinglike. But why would a monkey see a plush turtle as akin to self? And how would it know what a truck was or was not? Also: The male monkeys played with trucks. The females chose between the two about equally. The logic here walks a twisted path across the floor of the uncanny valley.

Still, most hormone researchers agree that these differences are real. But that they’re directly linked to prenatal testosterone? Not so much. And to differences in career choice? “There’s 100 percent no consensus on that,” says Justin Carré, a psychologist at Nipissing University in Ontario. “The human literature on early androgen exposure is really very messy.”

.

Now, the guy mentions the monkey study because he states that none of the studies on humans can be trusted. It's because all the studies have been on extreme exposures to hormones in utero. So the scientists when looking at monkeys. And then the author states why the monkey research can't be used.

Effectively he's dismissed the original research and the secondary (monkey) research.

Yet you're accusing him of being selective.

ohnonotgmail

the counter arguments came from the people who wrote the studies he quoted. he misinterpreted the results. the authors have confirmed this. the only question now is did he do this because it suited his agenda or was it simply a lack of understanding on his part. or perhaps it was both.

Grayson

Now you're pivoting. You've decided that rather than defend the science, which you can't, you'll make this into an ethical argument about whether he deserves the abuse he got for his statements.

Firstly, I provided a link which addresses the science. Read it if you have time between rereg's.
Secondly it's debatable if he deserves the pillorying he got. Personally I don't think he did at first. I do believe he deserved to get fired. He created an uncomfortable work environment and he was dumb enough to publish this thing internally, so yeah he deserved to be fired. I said he didn't deserve to become a global figure of hate, but since then he's done interviews where he's doubled down and has even come out with more stuff (Such at the hormones in utero making women less apt to be coders). So at this point he's actively part of it.

Resist ZOG

What's the big deal? Women aren't as inclined to go into IT similar to how men are less inclined to go into nursing.

Anyway fair to Goolag for proving his point. Hope lands a good job soon.

Grayson

There is loose evidence. Most of the differences can however be put down to sociological and environmental causes.

However there's no evidence to show that there's a difference between male and female coders. Any woman who applies for that job will have just as much interest as a man. Plus the job isn't just about things. I work in IT and spend my day in meetings with coders, engineers, PM's etc. So much of this work is planning and talking.

Read the article I posted. It's informative and shows how he drew incorrect conclusions.

Grayson

He did something dumb. He posted that crap online. From a HR perspective it creates a hostile work environment. And once it became public google really had no option but to fire him. He had to know that saying that crap in work is unacceptable.

ohnonotgmail

No it because he is an idiot who didn't understand the studies he was reading and decided to tell the world that he is an idiot. There is no ideology here. only science. science he doesnt understand.

kylith

And think IT companies are taking fair steps to see if women can be made more interested in pursuing it as a career.

For the record, I think that there are similar societal blocks toward men who want to become, for example, nurses. These too need to be looked at and the profession made more open to male applicants.

ohnonotgmail

that has already been discussed. when the authors of a paper publicly say you misinterpreted what they said then it is fair to say he got it wrong. to exacerbate that by doubling down after being told you are incorrect is the sign of an idiot. there is no ideology here. he got the science wrong. he has been told this by the people who did the science he referred to yet he still insists he is right.

Grayson

I'm just going to stop responding to you. I put a link to teh wired article in my first response to you. Read it. Until then there's no point in talking to you until you read the links

silverharp

kylith wrote: »

And think IT companies are taking fair steps to see if women can be made more interested in pursuing it as a career.

For the record, I think that there are similar societal blocks toward men who want to become, for example, nurses. These too need to be looked at and the profession made more open to male applicants.

the nurse case is interesting but again its not a well paid profession and there are probably alternate careers for men which pay higher or are more exiting. There are more male EMTs (paramedics) who could fit the bill as being potential nurses, but an easy wager would be to guess than men would prefer an EMT job to that of a nurse.

Bob24

Grayson wrote: »

Yep, the guy who wrote the study actually says that damore is wrong in the way he interpreted it.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

bluewolf wrote: »

"the author of the study says he misinterpreted it"
"you're just being emotional"

Yeah okay

I don't know if anyone read it (a number of people on this thread seem to enjoy talking about documents they haven't read), but actually the Wired link provided doesn't quite back that statement.

For a starter it (selectively) quotes 2 researchers whose studies are referenced in the memo, not one

And then while one of them does say "That’s a huge stretch to me" (i.e. he's far from convinced but falls short of saying it's wrong) none of them says clearly that their paper was misinterpreted. The authors of the Wired article do say that alright ... but is has nothing to do with "the author of the study says".

But anyway ... I guess going back to people's actual words rather than someone's interpretation of what they have said which supports as specific case to be made is a bit old-fashioned.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

the nurse case is interesting but again its not a well paid profession and there are probably alternate careers for men which pay higher or are more exiting. There are more male EMTs (paramedics) who could fit the bill as being potential nurses, but an easy wager would be to guess than men would prefer an EMT job to that of a nurse.

There's generally a correlation between when men enter an industry, the pay goes up. I'll try find the link on my computer. Similar to what happened when women used to dominate IT, i think it wasn't well paid. Then men entered the profession and up it went.
So it might happen with nursing

ohnonotgmail

When a person continues to insist they are right when they have been shown to be wrong then i feel quite comfortable calling them an idiot. The ability to learn from your mistakes is the mark of a non-idiot. Idiots do not possess this capacity. by all means continue to post your tired rhetoric about "ideology". i could do with a good laugh today.