Pages

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Here's a thought about the Google Manifest dude..

James Damore has a masters degree from Harvard in  biology.

Apparently he was working towards a PhD (Doctorate) degree, but hasn't finished the program. One of the requirements to garnering a PhD would be some sort of thesis on a relative subject.  The raging debate (even more raging today) on whether or not seemingly inherent differences between the sexes are due to a different set of chromosomes and hormones (the biological argument), or due to culture and socialization (the social argument) would make for a very interesting subject.

So Damore has stated he will sue Google. Look for him to use whatever settlement he gets to finish his Doctorate, turn the manifest into a thesis, and then the thesis into a book that could be published. No doubt he would use his systems biology background to further explain his reasoning.

As the saying goes... there is no such thing as bad publicity.

44 comments:

The Apostle Paul said...

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

KD, "Crushing Cost" of ObimboCare said...

THE OBAMACARE attack on Personal Freedom.


"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREEDOM TAX: 6.5 million pay fine to avoid Obamacare."

It was design to punish those that believe in economic freedom and self reliance two pillars of a free people, socialist can't have us be free, they must feed the GOVT grow it and care take that growth suffocating the life out of the people.

Roger Amick said...

I would love to hear what your beautiful bride thinks on your opinion.

My lovely Panamanian Queen would use a machete to remove my head, if I thought that women were incapable of being dedicated engineers by being born female.

You know how she got her BSN in four years. I don't get in the way of all 4'10" woman. If I try to do something that I shouldn't do in my recovery.

I get to go to the physical therapist today, and it's going to be so much fun. I have moderate to severe lower back pain and they are going to do specific exercises. I wonder if the therapist is a person born without the ability to perform at the highest level?

I know your post really is not in support of a guy but it's not freedom of press. It was an internal company, memo and he really screwed up.

Once I got into the management level and I can guarantee you some of those people of the female gender, you would not want to mess with. One specific RN, with her master's from Yale, she was incredible and damn good looking.

I had to work with her on a couple different things and how to earn her respect because she knew that I didn't have a college degree but she understood that I could comprehend her requirements, and trusted me with it on several different projects.

There was another one who didn't know what the fuck was going on, eventually she got demoted.

When I first started to work at Kaiser Permanente Facilities Services, aka, the construction department, the general manager, had been there when the 1994 earthquake caused major damage to the hospital, and one of the parking structures collapsed. Luckily it was at 5:00 AM and no staff or patients were parked in the building. But she was completely overwhelmed, she would closed-door her office, did not come out to talk to anybody, or even take phone calls for like three or four hours a day.

When in my 17 years experience there, I saw both men and women either succeed or fail, and I did not think it was the gender caused either one to succeed or fail.

I will have been retired for five years on October 30th. I miss a lot of people but I sure as hell don't miss the work. Most of the people I've spoken to others who say that I left at the right time because they changed the way they do business and it's much more difficult and political. I'm glad I'm out of that mess.

But despite the claims of dementia, it doesn't mean that I couldn't step back into the job, if I wanted to do it, I could absolutely. No fucking way.

And by the way, I mentored two women into the estimating department and they're both successful and one has an outside career, that pays well and six figures. The other one is still a project engineer for Kaiser Permanente she probably wants to move on because she doesn't see any way to grow to get more advanced in her career. She is only 30 years old so she can do well. My boss had me help one Filipino gentleman, he was completely impossible . Every day was a new day if you know what I mean. They still kept them for one year but then ended up terminating him for non-performance basically.

caliphate4vr said...

good god man, you don't make sense

C.H. Truth said...

If your wife would chop off your head because of biology and neuroscience - then she would only make a good queen for something like Game of Thrones.

My wife is educated. She graduated from high school at age of 16. She started in college in psychology before moving into communications. She understands (we've talked about) the difference in how different brains work (neuroscience) and we have had discussions about how testosterone (and synthetic testosterone like steroids) effect behavior.


Besides, Roger... the guy didn't state that women could not be engineers or programmers because of genetics. It was not his argument at all. His argument was that more men (than women) are interested in being engineers or programmers because of reasons having to do with biology and neuroscience.

Certainly it's a fact that 80% of those graduating with technical degrees are actually male. The only question here is how to explain it.

________

Btw... I already know the answer to these questions, Roger:

But you didn't actually read his memo yourself... did you?

You are simply allowing others to do your thinking for you... aren't you?

wphamilton said...

He starts off badly and gets worse. From the very beginning, he claims without a shred of scientific justification these general characteristics, which he claims are due to "biology" or "evolutionary psychology":

Women emphasizing vs systemizing
gregariousness rather than assertiveness
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

Utter nonsense, appearing to be little more than a bigoted stereotype.

Why do you insist that this crap is neuroscience? If the guy wasn't fired for propagating harmful stereotypes, this public display of the sad state of his critical thought processes alone would have hampered him at Google.

C.H. Truth said...

WP - with all due respect, this guy has a masters degree from Harvard in Biology. I have yet to see much of anyone from the fields of biology or neurology say he was actually "wrong" about anything.

Your assertion that his opinions are derived without a "shred of evidence" is a ridiculous hyperbole that I can't imagine you even take seriously.

Just for starters, are you going to argue with the known effects that testosterone has on your behavior. Are you going to argue that the use of steroids (synthetic testosterone) does not increase aggressiveness. Are you trying to argue that this has not been scientifically vetted?

When you are comparing men to women, WP... it's a relative thing. Because men are more aggressive, that logically makes women less aggressive by comparison. Pretty simple logic. Who else are you comparing them to?

Moreover, the neurological study of human brain activity shows differences between men and women, and it can even show specific differences for people with bi-polar tendencies other disorders. The activities in a female brain show different patterns and are more or less active in certain areas than the male brain. One of those patterns is that the female brain is more active in the area that deals with anxiety. That is where he gets his opinion that women are more prone to anxiety. I believe that study may have even been specifically cited in the memo.

He didn't just pull this out of his ass, WP. This was all based on known scientific studies. Studies you can agree or disagree with (if you want to go take the time to look through them).

But just because you maybe either unaware of or want to disagree with these studies... doesn't mean that they do not exist or that a person with a Ivy League Masters in Biology is pulling nonsensical biological arguments out of his ass.


Bottom line: This isn't about whether you agree or I agree with him.

You have a person with a masters in biology being punished by a company because his biology based opinion is deemed to be offensive to their company stated orthodoxy on current social issues.

If this was a biologist getting fired by a company because his opinions were deemed offensive to the company's religious views.

Everyone applauding Google right now (including you) would likely want the CEO of the religious company's head on a stick.

wphamilton said...

I am dead serious: he has no shred of scientific justification for any of the three points he made. If you disagree, don't "appeal to authority". Demonstrate it.

I don't care about a "masters degree from Harvard". Thousands of people have a masters and still don't have a clue.

I'm not going to "argue with testosterone" but again you're leaving out an absolutely crucial step. Link testosterone to any of those claims. Or don't, because there IS no science linking testosterone to "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)" for example, or "emphasizing vs systemizing". It's "bro science" not actual science.

It is complete nonsense, because there is no science behind it at all. It's not a matter of opinion, nor a matter of my agreeing or disagreeing. You make a claim of scientific fact, it's up to you to justify it.

wphamilton said...

I'd want the religious CEO's head on a stick, really? Have you ever heard me complaining about Chick-fi-A? If they, or their employees, don't harm anybody, I don't care.

Bad analogy pretending Google's reaction similar to a religious viewpoint, but I couldn't let that personal charge go unchallenged.

wphamilton said...

"One of those patterns is that the female brain is more active in the area that deals with anxiety. "

And deals with a host of other things. From there to "more apt to anxiety" is, frankly, ludicrous.

LOL, you should have run this by your wife before posting about it.

C.H. Truth said...

WP - perhaps if you used bold capital letters in your statement, it would more of the effect you are hoping for.

But I think you could do what I did and do a little research on your own. Instead of demanding there is no "evidence" - just go do a search on some of these subjects.

(I would recommend "Bing" btw)

Research stress related disorders like Dysthymia and other forms of depression... and then tell me that there is no evidence to suggest women are more prone to them (hint: 2-3 times more likely to be treated for some of these).

Research the effects of testosterone as it pertains to aggressiveness and competitiveness in men. Research the effects on estrogen (hint: even places like webmd will cite the correlation between depression and anxiety being more prevalent with women in their stronger estrogen-producing years).

Research how men and women handle stress. Psychological consensus suggest that women and men deal with stress differently as well. Women are more prone to interacting and talking it out with their friends, while men are more prone to either bottle up stress or by doing a physical activity (especially those that are competitive).

Research the advancement in how biologists are finding more and more genetic difference between men and women that many believe are actually showing biological reasons for everything from men and women being more susceptible to certain types of diseases, as well as certain types of behaviors. Apparently where they once believed genetics (outside of the duplicate X vs Y chromosome) was fairly random, it turns out that the duplicate X and Y actually tend to promote certain differences (such as the grouping and duplication of various genes) that actually create real biological differences between the sexes.

Research the neurological studies on the brain patterns of men and women. Check for yourself what these studies actually say.

____

Is it really a stereotype to say that women handle stress differently, when they are upwards of three times more likely to be treated for certain types of depression than men? Is it really a stereotype when medical doctors associate this with estrogen? Is it really a stereotype when the broad psychological consensus states as much?

Is it really a stereotype to say that men are more aggressive and competitive, when both the medical community suggest that testosterone creates more aggressiveness and competitiveness, and psychologists have a consensus that men even handle stress through physical actions and competitive activities.


Bottom Line, WP: I am not sure that there was a single thing this guy stated that cannot be backed up by some scientific or psychological study. The fact that you haven't bothered to research it, doesn't make it true that no such evidence exists to back his claims.

wphamilton said...

A lot of strawman tangents there, but no support for your claim.

Very direct question to you, which you failed to address.

Given these three generalizations:

Women emphasizing vs systemizing
gregariousness rather than assertiveness
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

Show that there is any link whatsoever between lacking testosterone and these being more prevalent in women. Show any evidence at all that the female brain structure and chemistry leads to these. Those are his claims, and yours.

For that matter, there is no scientific evidence that any of these are more prevalent in women working in the tech industry, and scant if any for women in general.

I've already read studies about the differences in "brain patterns" (sic). What they do NOT claim is behavioral links, other than injuries with serious pathologies. That's probably why you continue to make general statements (mistaken ones) rather than citing a single conclusion from any study that might support your (erroneous) claims.

wphamilton said...

I am not sure that there was a single thing this guy stated that cannot be backed up by some scientific or psychological study.

So cite one then. I am more sure that few if any of his claims CAN be backed up by a peer-reviewed study. You certainly haven't provided one.

rrb said...



wp, i think you and most everyone on the left miss the larger point -

whenever one decides to embark upon an effort into social engineering to force an outcome that should otherwise be reached via natural selection, you create distortions. distortions that then need to be covered up with groupthink nonsense regarding equality, diversity, etc.

larry summers was run out of harvard on a rail for stating the obvious. what he said was not wrong, it was simply a hard truth. and it offended the sensibilities of precious little snowflakes whose "reason" is powered by emotion and "fairness" rather than logic.

certain outcomes aren't fair because life isn't fair.

as my dad used to tell me when i griped about the unfairness of something in my youth -

"life isn't fair. you want fair? well, fair is something that comes around once a year every summer. there's rides and games and fried dough. that's the only "fair" you'll ever be entitled to in life."

i can only imagine how many pearl-clutching, fainting couch coastal salons dad would be kicked out of today were he alive and able to share that wisdom with our current set of "betters."

rrb said...

So cite one then. I am more sure that few if any of his claims CAN be backed up by a peer-reviewed study. You certainly haven't provided one.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

why stop at one? how about two, three, ten? or better yet, cite them all.

but when you do, please cite a single study that supports the social engineering of desired outcomes. because that's really what's on the table here.

men are from mars and women are from venus. there are intractable differences that will exist until the end of time, and never ending attempts to pound that square peg into a round hole is going to allow us to get around it.

we're debating whether the google guy's manifesto is based in fact rather than conjecture and opinion, when we should be debating how we arrived at where we are, and why we shouldn't find our current climate of PC groupthink downright chilling.

this situation screams in summary about how fucked we are as a society, and everyone would rather look the other way.

"cite a study."

give me a fucking break.

wphamilton said...

why stop at one? how about two, three, ten?

I'm trying to make it easy for CH. Maybe he can Google up some off-the-wall "study" somewhere, that's too obscure to have been peer reviewed, that backs up his claims. Probably not, but if I demanded more than one he'd have no chance at all.

wphamilton said...

RRB " social engineering of desired outcomes"

Where does social engineering come into it, in this google rant and firing? What Google policy is it that you believe is social engineering?

Or is this another of those things that I "don't get it" when I ask for something specific that gives credit to some wild claim?

C.H. Truth said...

Women emphasizing vs systemizing

A quick search of this particular argument: You can look on Wikipedia for the argument itself... and it lists 163 different references.

I might argue that this is a little more than none...

References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c Lippa, R. A. (2009). Gender, Nature, and Nurture. NY: LEA.
^ Jump up to: a b c Halpern, D. F. (2011). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (4th Edition). NY: Psychology Press
Jump up ^ Fausto-Sterling, A., (2012). Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. NY: Routledge.
Jump up ^ Halpern, Diane F. (2011). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. (4. ed.). London: Routledge. p. 36. ISBN 9781848729414.
Jump up ^ Richardson, S. S. (2013) Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome Hardcover. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Jump up ^ Becker, J.B., Berkley, K. J., Geary, N., & Hampson, E. (2007) Sex Differences in the Brain: From Genes to Behavior by NY: Oxford University Press.
Jump up ^ Helmuth, N. (1994). Hormones, Sex, and Society. NY: Praeger
^ Jump up to: a b Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jump up ^ Wilson, M. & Daly, M. (1983) Sex, evolution and behavior.
Jump up ^ Low, B. (2000). Why sex matters. NJ: Princeton University Press.
^ Jump up to: a b Geary, D. C. (2009) Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association
Jump up ^ Gray, P. B. (2013). Evolution and Human Sexual Behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Jump up ^ Halpern, D. (2012). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (4th Ed.). NY: Psychology Press. p. 2.
Jump up ^ Miller, Geoffrey (2000). The Mating Mind. Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc. (First Anchor Books Edition, April 2001). New York, NY. Anchor ISBN 038549517X
Jump up ^ Colapinto, John (2006-08-08). As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0061120565. Retrieved 23

C.H. Truth said...

There are several more - you can check them at this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

C.H. Truth said...

WP... it's obvious that you refuse to actually look into this yourself. Because if you did, you wouldn't make silly arguments that take about 2 minutes to prove wrong.

The fact that you don't believe that there are any scientific studies regarding male vs female assertiveness/aggressiveness as it's tied to biology (and testosterone)... is absolutely mind boggling.

_____


Lastly... do you DENY that statistics show that women are diagnosed and treated for depression considerably more often than Men, and in the cases of your more milder form of temporary depressions (usually stemming from situational events) is 2-3 times higher?

(hint - anyone reading this thread can do a search and find these statistics)

C.H. Truth said...

btw... specific to your wording to the first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory

There appears to be several references to several studies starting in 1998 on your specific wording (or his specific wording).

Disgusted with Ch, James said...

Let's start teaching little girls in school how inferior they are in oh so many ways.

C.H. Truth said...

James...

You understand that the reason why biologists and neurologists are studying the differences has nothing to do with "teaching" little girls that they are inferior.

Most of the research is trying to figure out why certain physical diseases are more prominent to certain sexes, and why there are even neurological differences. Understanding why (for instance) Alzheimer's disease effects women and men differently, could be the key to actually curing the disease. This would be why it is important to study the differences in brain activity between men and women. Yes, this will also perhaps reinforce some of the "stereotypes" if said studies confirm those "stereotypes". But science is science.

If we simply demand that biologists and neurologists who study these differences are heretics because they don't observe liberal political dogma... and we discount and confront them at every turn... what good does that do for society? Do we stop trying to make medical advancements, because we may find out things that disrupt your political goals??

opie said...

Again, CH, I find it amazing you have now become an expert concerning the sexes. You really should spend more time with your new lady instead of trying to convince me, wp and james how smart you really aren't.. Note again, you are posting opinions, not science...

C.H. Truth said...

I think WP, Opie, and James should read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html

opie said...

The fact that you don't believe that there are any scientific studies regarding male vs female assertiveness/aggressiveness as it's tied to biology (and testosterone)... is absolutely mind boggling.

Studies involving both assertiveness and social anxiety measures are sparse. Those that are available have mostly been used to evaluate applications of what is already assumed to be a negative correlational relationship between assertiveness and social anxiety with other points of behavioral, affective, or cognitive interest. For example, one such study used the FNE and the RAS to evaluate the differing results of skills training or cognitive-behavioral therapy. The researchers found that neither type of behavioral help was more beneficial than the other (Hammen, Jacobs, Mayol, & Cochran, 1980). Other studies have found a negative correlation between dating competence and assertiveness when compared to social anxiety levels and a negative correlation between social anxiety and inferiority when compared to assertiveness. (Leisure-Lester, 2001; Paterson, Green, Basson & Ross, 2002).

http://www.kon.org/urc/v6/moore.html FWIW

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
I think WP, Opie, and James should read this:

Read it this morning. You have a point?

C.H. Truth said...

Again, CH, I find it amazing you have now become an expert concerning the sexes.

I just have the curiosity level to do simple research.

As pointed out over and over... I make no argument as to whether or not Damore is correct with everything he states, just that what he states (despite WP's dubious claims otherwise) are backed by scientific studies (good, bad, or indifferent).

In fact, WP is pretty much the only person I have seen who is making the argument that Damore is citing wild opinion with zero scientific evidence.

Most of the educated people that read his memo/manifesto/essay either claim that his science is correct, or they claim he is relying too heavily on science that is considered "controversial", or that he is overstating his claims. But most everyone (other than apparently WP) understands that he has an actual working knowledge of this stuff and has done his research.

As one female neuroscientist suggested:

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 or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.

Bottom line is that James Damore is a person with a Masters of Biology from Harvard, who obviously has put a great deal of research into the subject matter at hand.

WP is a Tech expert who has stubbornly refused to do even the slightest bit of cursory research on the subject, apparently to bolster his claim that he does not see a "shred of scientific evidence". A claim that is much easier to make when you refuse to look into it.

C.H. Truth said...

Read it this morning. You have a point?

Lee Jussim is a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University:

Quote: "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right."

Geoffrey Miller is an evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico:

Quote: "For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately."

Debra W Soh is a Toronto based science writer who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York

Quote: "As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership."



I think that's the point, Opie...

C.H. Truth said...

Since earning his bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Michigan David P. Schmitt has authored or co-authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters.

Quote:

"I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth"

opie said...


I think that's the point, Opie...

The point is firmly on the top of your head.....For what its worth, it still is not science, it is anecdotal opinions. Funny how you for the first time believe a bunch of science experts on a nothing news story. The same type of people back GW which you ignore by your naive, the models are wrong. I have not said any of the findings are wrong. I do maintain it ain't science in spit of you thinking it is. BTW, I really have no dog in the discussion other than the scientific method which this has not been part of your or the google BS. Maybe when the trial results are published and reviewed, I might care. But a times opinion writer is still not a credible source for science. BTW, all your quotes are opinions. Thanx for taking the time out to once again prove nothing.

wphamilton said...

"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."

You understand that this statement in no way supports the three claims. Right?

I did more than a "cursory study" of this btw. More than 3 decades ago, and I've kept up with cursory interest since then.

C.H. Truth said...

WP -

Well your cursory opinions appear to be at odds with the opinions of real neuroscientists and behavior psychologists who pretty much all believe that Damore's essay was scientifically accurate.

But I guess they are just not quite as educated on the subjects as you are... or perhaps they did not read Damore's essay quite as closely as you did?

wphamilton said...

I don't know precisely what it is that you believe "real neuroscientists" are saying that disagrees with me, but I'm pretty sure that it's not what you think it is. So let's break it down.

Do you believe that any neuro-scientist, anywhere, has claimed to be able to predict personality trains from an electrical activity map of a brain that has no trauma or other pathology? Simple question, yes or no.

wphamilton said...

Secondly, in any of the examples you've cited, do you believe that the authors of those quotes are trying to reprise the old nature vs nurture argument in neuroscience? Or do you believe they should be interpreted in the modern context which holds that these traits evolve over time with the individual, shaped simultaneously by both genetic and environmental factors?

Simple question: which is it?

rrb said...

Where does social engineering come into it, in this google rant and firing? What Google policy is it that you believe is social engineering?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

in the affirmative action of their hiring practices and their prosecution of thought crimes.

both pursue a desired outcome.

opie said...

appear to be at odds with the opinions of real neuroscientists and behavior psychologists who pretty much all believe that Damore's essay was scientifically accurate.

WP Isn't it special that you too are the recipient of CH speaking for you! Typical of those who can't defend their tenet. Simple question seems to have drawn the typical crickets chirping.......Good job!!!

C.H. Truth said...

WP - I provided quotes from neuroscientists, behavioral pychologists, and others who actually stated very specifically that Damore's statements regarding the science were accurate.

Last time I checked, none of them were asked about whether or not they agreed with WP Hamilton's version of this.

The only WP Hamilton "opinion" that I am actually disputing here is the "opinion" by WP Hamilton that Damore's entire essay was 100% void of any scientific evidence what-so-ever... An opinion WP Hamilton stressed multiple times... and an opinion clearly rejected by many qualified people who have read Damore's paper.


But hey, WP... while neuroscientists, biologists and clinical psychologists might disagree with you, at the very least you have the intellectual backing of Opie and James.

C.H. Truth said...

But if you are asking for "my opinion" (or even if you are not) - the science shows that there are inherent differences between men and women in multiple ways. Biologically, genetically, hormonal, and neurological.

These differences create certain natural male and female traits that (if you believe in evolution) likely have been strengthened over time because they fit a need.

This probably leads to the tradition and social aspects of gender roles, which probably further strengthens the neurological differences (neuroscience suggests that a neuropathway can be strengthened through use, almost like a muscle, whereas a lack of use can lead to weakening).

It would be logical to conclude that stripping away any sense of gender, by only allowing gender neutral activities, gender neutral toys, gender neutral clothing, etc... that you may be able to reduce the differences between the genders to some degree. That over time, as the need for gender specific roles are lessened by technology (do we need males to hunt or fight anymore), it's possible that evolution might narrow the gap somewhat more.

But the biological science suggests that blurring these gender lines to the point of some degree of gender "sameness" (deemed by some to be the only true form of equality) is a complete exercise in futility. There are still two sexes, with two different sets of chromosomes, gene patterns, biological bodies, hormones, and neurological strengths and weaknesses. It's simply "unnatural" to assume that we can ever fully expect a completely gender neutral or gender fluid society.

C.H. Truth said...

So the real question to ask yourself... is what is the "best" thing for society in all of this. There seems to be a fairly demanding argument on the left for a need to blur the gender differences, and do whatever we can to create (at least the illusion of) sameness.

This feels like an attempt to simply ignore scientific differences for purposes of an ideology... and I am not sure that it really serves any greater purpose. We certainly do not seem to be a more cohesive and happy society since we have started to reject the notion that there is anything healthy or helpful regarding gender differences.

I wonder how healthy it would be to teach children that gender differences are some sort of myth, and how healthy it would be to live in a society (like the google world) where you can be punished for believing something that is scientifically true... simply because it doesn't correlate with what we "want" to teach.

C.H. Truth said...

I'd be curious who read the actual memo Damore wrote:

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

and who read the one being circulated that removed the charts and links.


I didn't realize until today that his memo was being circulated specifically without including the charts and links that he actually used. Presumably to make it look less like an serious paper, and more like a opinionated rant.

wphamilton said...

WP - I provided quotes from neuroscientists, behavioral pychologists, and others who actually stated very specifically that Damore's statements regarding the science were accurate.

I don't see that at all. I'm not sure that you understand what they were saying, and how it relates, or actually doesn't relate, to Damore's claims. Which are almost universally rejected.

wphamilton said...

CH, I presented you with three of his claims from his first page, quoted them, and told you that there is not only no scientific evidence, but that no modern psychologist or neuroscientist accepts them.

You argue with vague generalities about differences in brains, differences in hormones, your assumption of different roles in 10,000 BC, and so on, and in not a single sentence have you even attempted to show that any of those generalities and differences demonstrate - or even support - those claims.

I'm not "the only one" in this case. My "opinion" here represents the vast majority of neuroscientists and psychologists. You are very much out on an island with this, arguing points not in question and pretending significance that isn't there. Your reluctance to find a single specific quote or opinion to substantiate these affirmative claims proves it.

C.H. Truth said...

CH, I presented you with three of his claims from his first page, quoted them, and told you that there is not only no scientific evidence, but that no modern psychologist or neuroscientist accepts them.

Sorry. But you are just flat out wrong. In fact, it would be hard to even be any more wrong.

Your reluctance to find a single specific quote or opinion to substantiate these affirmative claims proves it.

I have provided several specific quotes from a variety of scientists on this thread. Again, WP... you are just flat out wrong.