The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Google CEO Denounces, May Fire, His Underling for Crimethinking About Males and Females
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From recode:

Firing expected after Google CEO says employee who penned controversial memo on women has violated its Code of Conduct

The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism”

BY KARA SWISHER @KARASWISHER AUG 7, 2017, 8:46PM EDT

In a memo to employees, CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

It’s almost as if women tend to take everything personally and have a hard time thinking about statistical realities in abstract logical fashions.

Pichai’s wording appears to indicate that the employee is likely be fired, which some inside and outside the company have been calling for. A Google spokesperson said the company would not confirm any firing, but others have been let go for violating its Code of Conduct in the past.

Keep in mind that the speculation over firing is, at this point, speculation.

Wrote Pichai:

From: Sundar

Subject: Our words matter

This has been a very difficult few days. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions. …

— Sundar

So, Google underlings, you may say anything you want, except you must never notice that there tend to be differences between males and females.

How exactly you can ever win an argument on this subject when you must grant your Social Justice Jihadi opponents’ most fundamental and ludicrous premise is your problem, not mine. I’m just Google’s CEO.

 
    []
  1. Any, repeat any, official statement that has more than two, maybe three, sentences explaining is complete BS. QED

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/google-ceo-denounces-his-underling-for-crimethink-about-males-and-females/#comment-1959858
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Dear Mr. Sailer please put down the pipe and go outside for a walk. This poor reader can not keep up with your output.

    There is probably an N.A. Meeting within walking distance of your house.

    Read More
  3. Sid says:

    For the first time in my life, I feel bad that I’m writing this on an Android phone rather than an iPhone…

    Read More
  4. The Z Blog says: • Website

    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.

    Every day, I get a little more optimistic.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius, NickG, TomSchmidt, eah
    • Replies: @O'Really
    That was my thought exactly. I am very surprised it was done this way.

    I am doubly surprised (but just shows how naive I am) that the CEO statement clearly indicates that he was allowed to express any opinion, but could not cite statistical facts. I wonder how this will hold up in court (although we have learned that the law is whatever a left-wing federal judge says it is).
    , @Clyde

    Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts.
     
    hahahahah Howard Stern used to do that. He would be talking about Arabs in some context, he would have subcon sitar music playing in the background.
    , @anonguy

    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.
     
    You think Google lawyers are stupid and didn't think of your option?

    Damore turned a deal down, doubtlessly, forced Google to fire him to get him out the door. I'm sure Google hated to do it knowing the obvious repercussions. See my other comment that Damore is a right wing clock boy who staged this whole thing, probably for a payoff in court.

    Just a big coincidence that his manifesto was posted in the wake of his NRLB complaint, right?

    He's a scuzz ball.
  5. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Indian speaking like a mindless Brahmin.

    Vs.

    Anglo challenge of group think.

    Nothing changes in 500 years.

    Read More
  6. res says:

    The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism”

    Hmm…

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

    In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5), using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Mean and Covariance Structure models testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan. Gender differences on these traits should be considered in personality research among older, as well as middle age and younger adults.

    I bet these folks have no trouble with noticing the Agreeableness difference (notice it is smaller than the Neuroticism difference).

    For what it is worth, the other three factors of the FFM don’t seem to vary as much between the sexes:

    Gender differences on Extraversion (encompassing gregariousness, excitement seeking, and positive affect) and Openness to Experience (encompassing interest in novel people, ideas, and aesthetics) have been either inconsistent or of negligible magnitude in large, statistically well-powered samples (cf. Feingold, 1994). However, Costa et al. (2001) investigated gender differences across specific aspects of these broad FFM domains, finding that men scored higher in some facets of Openness, such as Openness to Ideas, while women scored higher in others such as Openness to Aesthetics and Feelings. Men scored higher in some facets of Extraversion such as Excitement Seeking, while women scored higher in other Extraversion facets such as Warmth. Comparisons at the aggregrate level of Extraversion and Openness are thus less meaningful. Men and women appear to differ little on either specific aspects of Conscientiousness (encompassing such qualities as diligence, self-discipline, orderliness, and goal-orientation) or the subdimensions it comprises.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You came up with those hatefacts awfully quick. These are the kind of hatefacts that only Nazis know, so how is it that you know them? You must be some kind of Nazi to have hatefacts like this at your fingertips.
    , @ic1000
    res, thanks for taking the trouble to post interesting and relevant comments/links, such as this one (peer-reviewed pub on gender differences in personality traits as defined by the Five Factor Model).

    BTW, here are the raw scores on Neuroticism from the paper.

    Older Men -- 12.76 +/- 7.36
    Older Women -- 16.48 +/- 7.74

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.

  7. gman says:

    the recode story has been updated

    [UPDATE: Sources told Recode that the employee has indeed been fired, but Google said it would not comment on individual employees.]

    very unfortunate

    Read More
    • Replies: @JW
    He probably feels relieved. Google isn't the only employer in town.
  8. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

    “And yet it moves.”

    Read More
  9. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    This is good news guys. Google (and the rest of Alphabet Corp) is too big and too much in our lives already. Having them make the same mistakes the Hillary Clinton campaign made is just magical. The best thing now would be for another company to win a precedent setting case. Have them show the hard data to back up their claim they cannot be expected to employ the government mandated number of women, simply because women aren’t especially interested in doing the work, as compared to men.

    Read More
  10. I’m just Google’s CEO.

    Aaannndd… that’s the bottom line.

    To do anything else would be to kill his own golden goose (he may well not be a pure AA hire, but the thumb on the scale is a fat one, especially against his white male competitors).

    His goose will now be cooked regardless (as the emboldened SJWs accelerate their devouring of Google’s massive market cap), but the process will be more gradual.

    Read More
  11. “offensive and not OK” … This guy is good. You can see by this memo how he made it to the top, by being such a good brown bottom.

    Read More
  12. How would Pichai reacts if the Google board fired him for having only 1% African American in technical role on the basis that Goole implicitly discriminate ?

    Read More
  13. eah says:

    Read More
  14. JW says:
    @gman
    the recode story has been updated

    [UPDATE: Sources told Recode that the employee has indeed been fired, but Google said it would not comment on individual employees.]

    very unfortunate

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    He would have to go to a very small start up or spend a couple of years groveling and sitting through diversity training before one of the other tech companies would hire him. If Apple tried to hire him tomorrow, the SJWs there would revolt.
    , @Dr. X

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.
     
    No, he'll be blacklisted. The only tech work he'll get is a start-up in somebody's basement. Failing that, it's bagging groceries or McDonald's.

    He's f-cked.
  15. whorefinder says: • Website

    As Vox Day has shown, the opportunities are rife for non-Lefties to make a killing these days by simply cloning the SJW companies’ models and evolving from there. Both Gab and Infogalactic are day by day marching forward to completely overwhelm Wikipedia and Twitter. More are on the way. Can’t wait to see where Brave will go.

    This akin to when the barbarian hordes copied the Roman military organization and then used it to overwhelm the Western empire, who by that point had ceased the relentless drilling and practice that had really made them elite, and degenerated into softness, and were merely relying on the skeleton of organization their more vigorous ancestors had set up. The actually vigorous Goths adopted the organization and by then were man-for-man much better than the Western Romans at war. The Western Empire was ransacked.

    If this badthink programmer starts his own search engine/advertising merely by aping Google, within a decade his engine (call it “Real” or “Reality” just to mess with the Left) will have either eclipsed Google or else be head to head with them. And so long as he keeps diversity hires from getting in, he will thrive.

    There is money to be made, boys. And the Left is just giving it away.

    Read More
  16. JimB says:

    The DOJ should take two actions. First, issue a stern warning to Google not to fire the employee or face prosecution for violating his civil rights. Then issue a second warning to Google that they must hire an equal number of comparably paid male and female programmers representing the racial makeup of California or face prosecution for racial discrimination. Then let the chips (and the price of Google stock) fall where they may.

    Read More
  17. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Related: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/google-honors-bin-laden-supporter-with-google-doodle/

    This feels like a big milemarker in terms of how we live now. Brendan Eich, James Watson, Tim Hunt, Stephanie Grace, Jason Richwine, Larry Summers all got fired for saying some pretty mild and reasonable things. Goes to show we live in some pretty close minded times…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    This feels like a big milemarker in terms of how we live now. Brendan Eich, James Watson, Tim Hunt, Stephanie Grace, Jason Richwine, Larry Summers all got fired for saying some pretty mild and reasonable things. Goes to show we live in some pretty close minded times…
     
    Nothing new under the sun. Neo-Victorianism, this time the prudishness is about race, not sex.

    1914-1989 was just a respite, since the end of the Cold War it has been back to the future a la La Belle Epoque.

    QED.
  18. gregor says:

    The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism”

    Do these people know that “neuroticism” is a Big Five trait and that there’s a bunch of data on this and similar questions?

    For example,

    This paper investigates gender differences in personality traits, both at the level of the Big Five and at the sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain. Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. However, more extensive gender differences were found at the level of the aspects, with significant gender differences appearing in both aspects of every Big Five trait. For Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness, the gender differences were found to diverge at the aspect level, rendering them either small or undetectable at the Big Five level. These findings clarify the nature of gender differences in personality and highlight the utility of measuring personality at the aspect level.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

    Read More
  19. O'Really says:
    @The Z Blog
    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.

    Every day, I get a little more optimistic.

    That was my thought exactly. I am very surprised it was done this way.

    I am doubly surprised (but just shows how naive I am) that the CEO statement clearly indicates that he was allowed to express any opinion, but could not cite statistical facts. I wonder how this will hold up in court (although we have learned that the law is whatever a left-wing federal judge says it is).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool
    This is 9th Circuit Court Land too. If the official duties of the president aren't immune from the whimsical interventions of some traffic court magistrate, what does a little technicality like state employment law matter?
  20. Dr. X says:

    First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves…

    …except when we don’t.

    Read More
  21. Barnard says:

    People are free to express dissent, except on certain topics, which are out of bounds and you will be unpersoned and have your livelihood destroyed if you even think them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    People are free to express dissent, except on certain topics,
     
    Just the important ones. You're free to comment pro/con on Kylie's lip injections and see-through bra-less ensembles and whether Kyrie can lead a team on his own or is he making a mistake no longer wanting to be Robin to LeBron's Batman.

    Call it the Kylie/Kyrie axis - the closer your primary interests are to discussing the current doings of Kylie or Kyrie, the more employable you are in the long term.
  22. Barnard says:
    @JW
    He probably feels relieved. Google isn't the only employer in town.

    He would have to go to a very small start up or spend a couple of years groveling and sitting through diversity training before one of the other tech companies would hire him. If Apple tried to hire him tomorrow, the SJWs there would revolt.

    Read More
  23. “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

    Interesting. From available pictures, Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features to have been particularly biologically suited to be the upper caste wife of an Indian import tech millionaire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features
     
    I gave his offspring the lighter skin that all Brahmans, Asians, third worlders crave, and all I got was a lousy dot on my forehead.
    , @Anonymous

    Interesting. From available pictures, Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features to have been particularly biologically suited to be the upper caste wife of an Indian import tech millionaire.
     
    Sundar Pichai is a Tamil Brahmin from South India. They tend to vary widely in terms of skin tone, even within a family.

    Anjali Pichai is a Rajasthani Brahmin from North India. They tend to vary somewhat less.

    Traditionally, they would not have married, as they belong to widely separated, endogamous Brahmin sub-castes. They met in engineering school and later married in what used to be known in India as a "love marriage", i.e. not an arranged marriage.
  24. Dr. X says:
    @JW
    He probably feels relieved. Google isn't the only employer in town.

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.

    No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement. Failing that, it’s bagging groceries or McDonald’s.

    He’s f-cked.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Disagree: eah
    • Replies: @newrouter
    "No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement."

    Brendan Eich says hi!
    , @Desiderius
    Wrought large, this is why productivity has tanked.

    I'm not exaggerating. Seen it, off the top of my head, 40 to 50 times.
    , @Njguy73

    No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement. Failing that, it’s bagging groceries or McDonald’s.
     
    Not if he has F.U. money. Just like in "The Gambler." He's up, say, $3 million? I know what I'd do. Take $1.5 million, make it work 4% annually, I earn $60K a/yr for doing nothing. In Central NJ, that's middle class. Take the other half, rent a nice place, get a cheap car, open a learning center franchise, spend the rest of my life helping kids learn. Tell the world to jump on my middle finger and spin.
  25. Some parts of the memo were ok but we won’t tell you which ones – you have to guess which ones will get you fired – but rest assured we support free expression of ideas.
    Some ideas.
    Others will get you fired.
    But some ideas are ok to express and debate. But I won’t tell you which.

    Let 100 flowers bloom!

    Read More
  26. @Barnard
    People are free to express dissent, except on certain topics, which are out of bounds and you will be unpersoned and have your livelihood destroyed if you even think them.

    People are free to express dissent, except on certain topics,

    Just the important ones. You’re free to comment pro/con on Kylie’s lip injections and see-through bra-less ensembles and whether Kyrie can lead a team on his own or is he making a mistake no longer wanting to be Robin to LeBron’s Batman.

    Call it the Kylie/Kyrie axis – the closer your primary interests are to discussing the current doings of Kylie or Kyrie, the more employable you are in the long term.

    Read More
  27. Nathan K says:

    The only diversity that matters from a business/problem solving standpoint is diversity of thought/problem solving style. The egalitarian shouldn’t believe that diversity of thought correlates with any biological category. The egalitarian believes in human fungibility, so the types of thinkers you want to have in your organization should be distributed, more or less evenly, throughout all human populations.

    Yet, the diversity industry insists that the diversity that really matters is biological diversity: race/gender diversity. But that position only makes sense if men and women, or whites and non-whites, think differently. This is a position that assumes the basic premise of human biological diversity and evolutionary psychology: that different categories of people think differently, so by building a team with people from different biological categories, you necessarily have a team with different thought styles.

    Treating the acknowledgment of evolutionary psychology as heresy within this framework makes no sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Treating the acknowledgment of evolutionary psychology as heresy within this framework makes no sense.
     
    Money spends more easily than sense.
  28. newrouter says:
    @Dr. X

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.
     
    No, he'll be blacklisted. The only tech work he'll get is a start-up in somebody's basement. Failing that, it's bagging groceries or McDonald's.

    He's f-cked.

    “No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement.”

    Brendan Eich says hi!

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Brendan Eich is a millionaire many times over from all the Netscape stock he sold during the dotcom bubble. Unfortunately, we can safely assume this guy doesn't have the same kind of cushion to fall back on.
  29. Jack D says:
    @res

    The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism”
     
    Hmm...
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

    In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5), using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Mean and Covariance Structure models testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan. Gender differences on these traits should be considered in personality research among older, as well as middle age and younger adults.
     
    I bet these folks have no trouble with noticing the Agreeableness difference (notice it is smaller than the Neuroticism difference).

    For what it is worth, the other three factors of the FFM don't seem to vary as much between the sexes:

    Gender differences on Extraversion (encompassing gregariousness, excitement seeking, and positive affect) and Openness to Experience (encompassing interest in novel people, ideas, and aesthetics) have been either inconsistent or of negligible magnitude in large, statistically well-powered samples (cf. Feingold, 1994). However, Costa et al. (2001) investigated gender differences across specific aspects of these broad FFM domains, finding that men scored higher in some facets of Openness, such as Openness to Ideas, while women scored higher in others such as Openness to Aesthetics and Feelings. Men scored higher in some facets of Extraversion such as Excitement Seeking, while women scored higher in other Extraversion facets such as Warmth. Comparisons at the aggregrate level of Extraversion and Openness are thus less meaningful. Men and women appear to differ little on either specific aspects of Conscientiousness (encompassing such qualities as diligence, self-discipline, orderliness, and goal-orientation) or the subdimensions it comprises.
     

    You came up with those hatefacts awfully quick. These are the kind of hatefacts that only Nazis know, so how is it that you know them? You must be some kind of Nazi to have hatefacts like this at your fingertips.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    LOL. Ironically, he just has Google at his fingertips.
  30. @Dr. X

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.
     
    No, he'll be blacklisted. The only tech work he'll get is a start-up in somebody's basement. Failing that, it's bagging groceries or McDonald's.

    He's f-cked.

    Wrought large, this is why productivity has tanked.

    I’m not exaggerating. Seen it, off the top of my head, 40 to 50 times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Those sky-high multiples and stock prices for Alphabet and the rest of the FANG group are likely in danger. They have a diversity tax to pay. Creative destruction takes intriguing forms.
  31. @Nathan K
    The only diversity that matters from a business/problem solving standpoint is diversity of thought/problem solving style. The egalitarian shouldn't believe that diversity of thought correlates with any biological category. The egalitarian believes in human fungibility, so the types of thinkers you want to have in your organization should be distributed, more or less evenly, throughout all human populations.

    Yet, the diversity industry insists that the diversity that really matters is biological diversity: race/gender diversity. But that position only makes sense if men and women, or whites and non-whites, think differently. This is a position that assumes the basic premise of human biological diversity and evolutionary psychology: that different categories of people think differently, so by building a team with people from different biological categories, you necessarily have a team with different thought styles.

    Treating the acknowledgment of evolutionary psychology as heresy within this framework makes no sense.

    Treating the acknowledgment of evolutionary psychology as heresy within this framework makes no sense.

    Money spends more easily than sense.

    Read More
  32. Njguy73 says:
    @Dr. X

    He probably feels relieved. Google isn’t the only employer in town.
     
    No, he'll be blacklisted. The only tech work he'll get is a start-up in somebody's basement. Failing that, it's bagging groceries or McDonald's.

    He's f-cked.

    No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement. Failing that, it’s bagging groceries or McDonald’s.

    Not if he has F.U. money. Just like in “The Gambler.” He’s up, say, $3 million? I know what I’d do. Take $1.5 million, make it work 4% annually, I earn $60K a/yr for doing nothing. In Central NJ, that’s middle class. Take the other half, rent a nice place, get a cheap car, open a learning center franchise, spend the rest of my life helping kids learn. Tell the world to jump on my middle finger and spin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    And have a family! Something very expensive, I garner, where he is now!
  33. newrouter says:

    Havel:

    “}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

    {7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

    [MORE]

    {8}Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe. . . .

    {9}The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing. ”

    http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html

    Read More
  34. Purge the White men from Google. It is the only solution. Then purge the Asian men from Google, it is the only solution. Then purge the remaining sources of non-conformist thought. It is the only solution. Then purge….

    Read More
  35. Ivy says:
    @Desiderius
    Wrought large, this is why productivity has tanked.

    I'm not exaggerating. Seen it, off the top of my head, 40 to 50 times.

    Those sky-high multiples and stock prices for Alphabet and the rest of the FANG group are likely in danger. They have a diversity tax to pay. Creative destruction takes intriguing forms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cwhatfuture
    Google is a monopoly. They no longer have to be good - except at lobbying the government not to regulate them. They can buy whatever technology they need or want to bury. Because they no longer have to be good, they won't be.
  36. snorlax says:
    @newrouter
    "No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement."

    Brendan Eich says hi!

    Brendan Eich is a millionaire many times over from all the Netscape stock he sold during the dotcom bubble. Unfortunately, we can safely assume this guy doesn’t have the same kind of cushion to fall back on.

    Read More
  37. @Ivy
    Those sky-high multiples and stock prices for Alphabet and the rest of the FANG group are likely in danger. They have a diversity tax to pay. Creative destruction takes intriguing forms.

    Google is a monopoly. They no longer have to be good – except at lobbying the government not to regulate them. They can buy whatever technology they need or want to bury. Because they no longer have to be good, they won’t be.

    Read More
  38. Dee says:

    Large, left coast company I used to work for had a bitch of a time keeping female managers. When they were single, real gung-ho and willing to transfer to any of the distant offices.

    Then they got married; now they wouldn’t leave that location. The one hubby was at.

    Due to hypergamy, female obsession with marrying up, they married men with better paying jobs than they had. She knew he couldn’t get a new, good paying job every three years, average time at an office, so there she stayed.

    This was not popular with upper management, their mindset was moving everyone around to give them a wide range of experience.

    So they would give her an ultimatum; move or you’re gone. Most left, especially if hubby was making really good money and she could stay home and spend it.

    10 years ago, a Feminazi was upset about how few females with elite degrees were CEO’s at big companies. Using the NYT wedding announcements from 10 years earlier, she tracked some them down and reported what had happened to them.

    Hypergamy again. Their hubbies made the money; they spent it. It’s a rare chick that will bust her ass for years in a job if she has better options.

    NYT weddings page usually lists the college and degree of both parties…

    The married women at my company would never consider going into management. But that changed when the courts started awarding multimillion dollar awards when they canned a woman.

    So the women and minorities only get assignments within an hour’s commute from home.

    The white guys are the ones that are transferred all over creation….

    Read More
  39. Clyde says:
    @The Z Blog
    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.

    Every day, I get a little more optimistic.

    Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts.

    hahahahah Howard Stern used to do that. He would be talking about Arabs in some context, he would have subcon sitar music playing in the background.

    Read More
  40. @O'Really
    That was my thought exactly. I am very surprised it was done this way.

    I am doubly surprised (but just shows how naive I am) that the CEO statement clearly indicates that he was allowed to express any opinion, but could not cite statistical facts. I wonder how this will hold up in court (although we have learned that the law is whatever a left-wing federal judge says it is).

    This is 9th Circuit Court Land too. If the official duties of the president aren’t immune from the whimsical interventions of some traffic court magistrate, what does a little technicality like state employment law matter?

    Read More
  41. Clyde says:
    @Alec Leamas

    “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”
     
    Interesting. From available pictures, Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features to have been particularly biologically suited to be the upper caste wife of an Indian import tech millionaire.

    http://wagcenter.com/wc/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/sundar-pichai-anjali-pichai-5-1.jpg

    Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features

    I gave his offspring the lighter skin that all Brahmans, Asians, third worlders crave, and all I got was a lousy dot on my forehead.

    Read More
  42. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    In the small world department, Kara Swisher’s ex-girlfriend was interviewed about how horrible the memo was on Bloomberg TV on Monday.

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Alec Leamas

    “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”
     
    Interesting. From available pictures, Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features to have been particularly biologically suited to be the upper caste wife of an Indian import tech millionaire.

    http://wagcenter.com/wc/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/sundar-pichai-anjali-pichai-5-1.jpg

    Interesting. From available pictures, Mrs. Sundar Pichai seems from her light skin and Caucasoid features to have been particularly biologically suited to be the upper caste wife of an Indian import tech millionaire.

    Sundar Pichai is a Tamil Brahmin from South India. They tend to vary widely in terms of skin tone, even within a family.

    Anjali Pichai is a Rajasthani Brahmin from North India. They tend to vary somewhat less.

    Traditionally, they would not have married, as they belong to widely separated, endogamous Brahmin sub-castes. They met in engineering school and later married in what used to be known in India as a “love marriage”, i.e. not an arranged marriage.

    Read More
  44. Medvedev says:

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

    Wait, wait, wait, but wasn’t the whole idea behind diversity, hiring less qualified females over qualified asian/white males that we’re so fundamentally different, think differently and produce different results? And thus we need to hire more female engineers, directors and CEOs because males couldn’t have achieved the same results without females?
    So, it’s not offensive when diversity proponents say that women/blacks have ideas and perspective that asian/white males couldn’t have come up with … eh, am I getting this wrong? Could we start firing all those diversity officers who have been telling this mantra for years?

    Just a sentence from google diversity & inclusion page:

    Creating the right environments, programs and policies can support women in pursuing their dreams and building tools that change the world.

    If we’re the same why would we need to bend over backwards to create “the right environments, programs and policies” for women?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jugito
    Good point. Women should stay home during their fecund years and rear their husband's children, educate them, and involve them in the family enterprise. IF such women stopped competing against men in the workplace, men would earn enough to support the family in a comfortable lifestyle without needing a second income.
    , @Jugito
    Good point. Women should stay home during their fecund years and rear their husband's children, educate them, and involve them in the family enterprise. IF such women stopped competing against men in the workplace, men would earn enough to support the family in a comfortable lifestyle without needing a second income.
  45. I recall a local (Aussie) SJW feminist writing a newspaper article to the effect that Wikipedia didn’t have enough info on feminists and feminism, and that Something Had To Be Done. The Something didn’t seem to include her and her cohort actually writing the fucking material themselves. There was some additional blather about Wikipedia having to be more female-friendly and so on, I’m only a male so I have no idea what that would be. It was all intelligently written in the sense that it was well constructed and used a reasonable vocabulary, but to be so unaware of the self-parody of it all…

    Read More
  46. Romanian says: • Website
    @Njguy73

    No, he’ll be blacklisted. The only tech work he’ll get is a start-up in somebody’s basement. Failing that, it’s bagging groceries or McDonald’s.
     
    Not if he has F.U. money. Just like in "The Gambler." He's up, say, $3 million? I know what I'd do. Take $1.5 million, make it work 4% annually, I earn $60K a/yr for doing nothing. In Central NJ, that's middle class. Take the other half, rent a nice place, get a cheap car, open a learning center franchise, spend the rest of my life helping kids learn. Tell the world to jump on my middle finger and spin.

    And have a family! Something very expensive, I garner, where he is now!

    Read More
  47. @Jack D
    You came up with those hatefacts awfully quick. These are the kind of hatefacts that only Nazis know, so how is it that you know them? You must be some kind of Nazi to have hatefacts like this at your fingertips.

    LOL. Ironically, he just has Google at his fingertips.

    Read More
  48. eah says:

    Applies in this case as well.

    Read More
  49. jim jones says:

    I have always liked this image of political activism:

    View post on imgur.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I have the picture book in which the above photos from the Cultural Revolution are taken. It's called Red-Color News Soldier. I highly recommend it but I can't guaranty that the photos won't be appearing in your nightmares. It's all very amusing until you flip a few pages and see photos of these same guys being executed by a bullet to the back of the head. That really takes the fun out of it.

    This is what you have to keep in mind when dealing with Social Justice Jihadis - they play for keeps. Once you believe you are in possession of the True Recipe for making a Better Omelet then having to break a few eggs is a small price to pay to immanentize the eschaton.

  50. ic1000 says:
    @res

    The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism”
     
    Hmm...
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

    In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5), using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Mean and Covariance Structure models testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan. Gender differences on these traits should be considered in personality research among older, as well as middle age and younger adults.
     
    I bet these folks have no trouble with noticing the Agreeableness difference (notice it is smaller than the Neuroticism difference).

    For what it is worth, the other three factors of the FFM don't seem to vary as much between the sexes:

    Gender differences on Extraversion (encompassing gregariousness, excitement seeking, and positive affect) and Openness to Experience (encompassing interest in novel people, ideas, and aesthetics) have been either inconsistent or of negligible magnitude in large, statistically well-powered samples (cf. Feingold, 1994). However, Costa et al. (2001) investigated gender differences across specific aspects of these broad FFM domains, finding that men scored higher in some facets of Openness, such as Openness to Ideas, while women scored higher in others such as Openness to Aesthetics and Feelings. Men scored higher in some facets of Extraversion such as Excitement Seeking, while women scored higher in other Extraversion facets such as Warmth. Comparisons at the aggregrate level of Extraversion and Openness are thus less meaningful. Men and women appear to differ little on either specific aspects of Conscientiousness (encompassing such qualities as diligence, self-discipline, orderliness, and goal-orientation) or the subdimensions it comprises.
     

    res, thanks for taking the trouble to post interesting and relevant comments/links, such as this one (peer-reviewed pub on gender differences in personality traits as defined by the Five Factor Model).

    BTW, here are the raw scores on Neuroticism from the paper.

    Older Men — 12.76 +/- 7.36
    Older Women — 16.48 +/- 7.74

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.
     
    Agreed. I liked that Damore's memo included a graphic of this sort of thing to emphasize that the average was not everything. In an ideal world he would also have discussed tail effects (which are highly relevant here for some traits), but if the snowflakes can't understand the graphic he did include there is no hope of them understanding the tail effects of differing averages with a normal distribution.

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore's memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion? The Quillette article linked in http://www.unz.com/isteve/google-fires-honest-man/#comment-1960140 is the most analytical response I have seen, but it is not negative.
  51. Jack D says:
    @jim jones
    I have always liked this image of political activism:

    http://imgur.com/a/AY19O

    I have the picture book in which the above photos from the Cultural Revolution are taken. It’s called Red-Color News Soldier. I highly recommend it but I can’t guaranty that the photos won’t be appearing in your nightmares. It’s all very amusing until you flip a few pages and see photos of these same guys being executed by a bullet to the back of the head. That really takes the fun out of it.

    This is what you have to keep in mind when dealing with Social Justice Jihadis – they play for keeps. Once you believe you are in possession of the True Recipe for making a Better Omelet then having to break a few eggs is a small price to pay to immanentize the eschaton.

    Read More
  52. Jugito says:

    Sundar should be fired for writing this grammatic abortion: “The author had a right to express their views”

    Read More
  53. Jugito says:
    @Medvedev

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
     
    Wait, wait, wait, but wasn't the whole idea behind diversity, hiring less qualified females over qualified asian/white males that we're so fundamentally different, think differently and produce different results? And thus we need to hire more female engineers, directors and CEOs because males couldn't have achieved the same results without females?
    So, it's not offensive when diversity proponents say that women/blacks have ideas and perspective that asian/white males couldn't have come up with ... eh, am I getting this wrong? Could we start firing all those diversity officers who have been telling this mantra for years?

    Just a sentence from google diversity & inclusion page:

    Creating the right environments, programs and policies can support women in pursuing their dreams and building tools that change the world.
     
    If we're the same why would we need to bend over backwards to create "the right environments, programs and policies" for women?

    Good point. Women should stay home during their fecund years and rear their husband’s children, educate them, and involve them in the family enterprise. IF such women stopped competing against men in the workplace, men would earn enough to support the family in a comfortable lifestyle without needing a second income.

    Read More
  54. Jugito says:
    @Medvedev

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
     
    Wait, wait, wait, but wasn't the whole idea behind diversity, hiring less qualified females over qualified asian/white males that we're so fundamentally different, think differently and produce different results? And thus we need to hire more female engineers, directors and CEOs because males couldn't have achieved the same results without females?
    So, it's not offensive when diversity proponents say that women/blacks have ideas and perspective that asian/white males couldn't have come up with ... eh, am I getting this wrong? Could we start firing all those diversity officers who have been telling this mantra for years?

    Just a sentence from google diversity & inclusion page:

    Creating the right environments, programs and policies can support women in pursuing their dreams and building tools that change the world.
     
    If we're the same why would we need to bend over backwards to create "the right environments, programs and policies" for women?

    Good point. Women should stay home during their fecund years and rear their husband’s children, educate them, and involve them in the family enterprise. IF such women stopped competing against men in the workplace, men would earn enough to support the family in a comfortable lifestyle without needing a second income.

    Read More
  55. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions. …

    The singular “their.” What an excellent example of how “wokespeak” comes to infiltrate and dominate even our usage of languages within the last ten years, these days it seems almost normal when people use the genderless “they.”

    Availability cascade is a terrifying thing.

    Read More
  56. TheBoom says:
    @Sid
    For the first time in my life, I feel bad that I'm writing this on an Android phone rather than an iPhone...

    Don’t worry comrade. Apple is even worse.

    Read More
  57. TheBoom says:

    Freedom of speech is not an Indian concept. It is a white male concept.

    Read More
  58. res says:
    @ic1000
    res, thanks for taking the trouble to post interesting and relevant comments/links, such as this one (peer-reviewed pub on gender differences in personality traits as defined by the Five Factor Model).

    BTW, here are the raw scores on Neuroticism from the paper.

    Older Men -- 12.76 +/- 7.36
    Older Women -- 16.48 +/- 7.74

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.

    Agreed. I liked that Damore’s memo included a graphic of this sort of thing to emphasize that the average was not everything. In an ideal world he would also have discussed tail effects (which are highly relevant here for some traits), but if the snowflakes can’t understand the graphic he did include there is no hope of them understanding the tail effects of differing averages with a normal distribution.

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore’s memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion? The Quillette article linked in http://www.unz.com/isteve/google-fires-honest-man/#comment-1960140 is the most analytical response I have seen, but it is not negative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore’s memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion?

     

    The article the following is responding to is the closest I've found.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

    I don't think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are. They believe they are engaged in a negative-sum struggle for power where narrative trumps truth, to the extent such a concept has any meaning. So even if blatant misrepresentation/no-platforming could be hypothetically problematic in a vacuum, the reality (to them) of oppression means that no holds are barred.

    My guess is that they've chosen poor ground for this particular battle.
  59. @res

    So, highly significant difference and lots of overlap, unsurprisingly.
     
    Agreed. I liked that Damore's memo included a graphic of this sort of thing to emphasize that the average was not everything. In an ideal world he would also have discussed tail effects (which are highly relevant here for some traits), but if the snowflakes can't understand the graphic he did include there is no hope of them understanding the tail effects of differing averages with a normal distribution.

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore's memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion? The Quillette article linked in http://www.unz.com/isteve/google-fires-honest-man/#comment-1960140 is the most analytical response I have seen, but it is not negative.

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore’s memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion?

    The article the following is responding to is the closest I’ve found.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

    I don’t think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are. They believe they are engaged in a negative-sum struggle for power where narrative trumps truth, to the extent such a concept has any meaning. So even if blatant misrepresentation/no-platforming could be hypothetically problematic in a vacuum, the reality (to them) of oppression means that no holds are barred.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks! I should have guessed SlateStarCodex would be a good place to go for a relatively sane look at least taking the SJW view seriously.

    First, the Adam Grant post Scott linked (for rebuttal) looks like a decent entree to some key papers attempting to justify the "minimal gender differences" POV. Both of these are not available freely unless you look:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-22162-004
    It is worth noting the single author of the first is one of the authors of the second. So looks like they are cherry picking one sides views (surprise!), but the papers look at least worth engaging.

    The 2010 paper focused on math skill finding an overall Cohen's d of 0.05 (Roughly speaking, difference in means expressed in SD units. As an analogy, this would be less than one IQ point) and a variance ratio of 1.08 in a meta-analysis. Looking at Table 2 (breaking out subgroup differences) was interesting. First, the abilities subgroups ALL had a d of 0.07 or higher (curious how that was massaged down to an overall 0.05 average). The studies were highly biased towards general ability (
    304 studies), but the highly selective ability category had 27 studies giving a d of 0.40 (which is enough to matter). In addition the high school studies gave a d of 0.23 and for college 0.18. So it looks like the inclusion of pre-pubertal data decreases the d (big surprise there). There were only 7 adult studies giving a d of -0.07 which I found surprising.

    It would be interesting to see a more thorough deconstruction by someone familiar with the literature, but my two tentative takeaway conclusions are:
    - Less difference than I would have expected in the general population.
    - But a significant difference in high ability, high school, and college groups.

    The 2010 paper serves as a good example of the type of study which is aggregated in the 2005 paper. In particular notice the importance of populations studied as reflected in the subgroups analysis.

    The 2005 paper covers a breadth of characteristics (124 in all). First, let's mention the exceptions they acknowledge:

    The Exceptions
    As noted earlier, the gender similarities hypothesis does not assert that males and females are similar in absolutely every domain. The exceptions—areas in which gender differences are moderate or large in magnitude—should be recognized.
    The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the domain of motor performance, particularly for measures such as throwing velocity (d  2.18) and throwing distance (d  1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
    muscle mass and bone size widens.
    A second area in which large gender differences are found is some—but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.
    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference
    in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

     

    Fair enough. In particular notice the puberty comment. It seems reasonable to speculate that matters for most of the differences IMO.

    Table 2 is a good summary of the effect sizes seen (pardon the formatting, I really wish there was a way to format tables better in comments here):


    Effect Sizes (n  124) for Psychological Gender Differences, Based on Meta-Analyses, Categorized by
    Range of Magnitude
    Effect sizes | Effect size ranges 0–0.10 0.11–0.35 0.36–0.65 0.66–1.00 1.0
    Number 37 59 19 7 2
    % of total 30 48 15 6 2

     

    Figure 1 shows how small a 0.21 SD mean shift appears, but even that difference is enough to result in a >50% overrepresentation at the 2SD level per Emil's calculator (an incredibly useful tool for making tail effect conversations concrete): http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    At 0.4 the overrepresentation becomes almost 2:1 and at 0.8 the overrepresentation is over 4:1. And this is without taking into account any possibly increased variance.

    So it looks like the big difference lies in the tail effects. For most of these the averages aren't that different. Let's take a look at some of the larger effect sizes (including some additional detail on the five factors model) and see how they align with all of those horrible unjustified stereotypes:

    Table 1
    Study and variable | Age | No. of reports | d
    DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents 5* 0.76
    Spatial perception All 92 0.44
    Mental rotation All 78 0.56
    Spatial visualization All 116 0.19
    Smiling Adolescents and adults 418 -0.40
    Smiling: Aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 295 -0.46
    Smiling: Not aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 31 -0.19
    Aggression (all types) All 69 0.50
    Physical aggression All 26 0.60
    Verbal aggression All 6 0.43
    Helping: Surveillance context Adults 16 0.74
    Neuroticism: Anxiety Adolescents and adults 13* -0.32
    Neuroticism: Impulsiveness Adolescents and adults 6* -0.01
    Extraversion: Gregariousness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.07
    Extraversion: Assertiveness Adolescents and adults 10* 0.51
    Extraversion: Activity Adolescents and adults 5 0.08
    Openness Adolescents and adults 4* 0.19
    Agreeableness: Trust Adolescents and adults 4* -0.35
    Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.91
    Conscientiousness Adolescents and adults 4 -0.18
    Body esteem All — 0.58
    Balance 3–20 years 67 0.09
    Grip strength 3–20 years 37 0.66
    Throw velocity 3–20 years 12 2.18
    Throw distance 3–20 years 47 1.98
    Vertical jump 3–20 years 20 0.18
    Sprinting 3–20 years 66 0.63
    Flexibility 5–10 years 13 -0.29
    Moral reasoning: Justice orientation All 95 0.19
    Moral reasoning: Care orientation All 160 0.28
    Computer use: Current All 18 0.33
    Computer self-efficacy All 29 0.41

     

    Argh. The signs for the ds did not survive cut and paste. Added negative signs (meaning females have a higher trait average) by hand so probably best to double check any you really care about.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    All in all Table 1 makes a good summary of sex difference magnitudes. I'm not sure how much to trust the absolute values given the bias of the authors, but they are probably in the ballpark.

    This comment is too long already so I'll comment on the SSC post itself elsewhere.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.
     
    Agreed. And it looks like Damore used some forethought (e.g. the NLRB complaint coming first) and intends to fight. This could get interesting. I hope Peter Thiel gets involved. This was a good quote: http://www.newsweek.com/who-james-damore-alt-right-furious-after-google-fires-engineer-over-anti-647716

    Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Theil’s investment firm Thiel Capital, wrote a widely shared tweet to Google asking the company to stop “teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”
     
    Does anyone know if Google offered Damore a payout in return for signing a hold harmless agreement?
    , @Jack D

    I don’t think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are.
     
    I disagree. Once you understand SJWism (like other totalitarian -isms such as Communism) as a utopian religion rather than a mere political party then their behavior makes perfect sense. Mere facts and reason are no match for faith and the desire to bring about the messianic period. If I tell a religious believer that there's no way you could build a boat with 2 of every species or that every human egg must be fertilized by human sperm in order to make a baby it's a waste of breath because the believer will never engage with you on the level of mere proof and logic. The believer will accept any argument, no matter how weak, that confirms his or her faith but those that contradict it are automatically deemed invalid no matter how many scientific studies back them. The true believer has no problem seeing thru the lies of other belief systems. But to a believer, his religion is not even a religion, it's just the simple and unquestionable revealed truth. It goes without saying that those who refuse to see the truth (heretics) deserve to be crushed for turning their back on goodness and embracing Satan. They have only brought this upon themselves.
  60. res says:
    @Desiderius

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore’s memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion?

     

    The article the following is responding to is the closest I've found.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

    I don't think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are. They believe they are engaged in a negative-sum struggle for power where narrative trumps truth, to the extent such a concept has any meaning. So even if blatant misrepresentation/no-platforming could be hypothetically problematic in a vacuum, the reality (to them) of oppression means that no holds are barred.

    My guess is that they've chosen poor ground for this particular battle.

    Thanks! I should have guessed SlateStarCodex would be a good place to go for a relatively sane look at least taking the SJW view seriously.

    First, the Adam Grant post Scott linked (for rebuttal) looks like a decent entree to some key papers attempting to justify the “minimal gender differences” POV. Both of these are not available freely unless you look:

    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001

    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-22162-004

    It is worth noting the single author of the first is one of the authors of the second. So looks like they are cherry picking one sides views (surprise!), but the papers look at least worth engaging.

    The 2010 paper focused on math skill finding an overall Cohen’s d of 0.05 (Roughly speaking, difference in means expressed in SD units. As an analogy, this would be less than one IQ point) and a variance ratio of 1.08 in a meta-analysis. Looking at Table 2 (breaking out subgroup differences) was interesting. First, the abilities subgroups ALL had a d of 0.07 or higher (curious how that was massaged down to an overall 0.05 average). The studies were highly biased towards general ability (
    304 studies), but the highly selective ability category had 27 studies giving a d of 0.40 (which is enough to matter). In addition the high school studies gave a d of 0.23 and for college 0.18. So it looks like the inclusion of pre-pubertal data decreases the d (big surprise there). There were only 7 adult studies giving a d of -0.07 which I found surprising.

    It would be interesting to see a more thorough deconstruction by someone familiar with the literature, but my two tentative takeaway conclusions are:
    - Less difference than I would have expected in the general population.
    - But a significant difference in high ability, high school, and college groups.

    The 2010 paper serves as a good example of the type of study which is aggregated in the 2005 paper. In particular notice the importance of populations studied as reflected in the subgroups analysis.

    The 2005 paper covers a breadth of characteristics (124 in all). First, let’s mention the exceptions they acknowledge:

    The Exceptions
    As noted earlier, the gender similarities hypothesis does not assert that males and females are similar in absolutely every domain. The exceptions—areas in which gender differences are moderate or large in magnitude—should be recognized.
    The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the domain of motor performance, particularly for measures such as throwing velocity (d  2.18) and throwing distance (d  1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
    muscle mass and bone size widens.
    A second area in which large gender differences are found is some—but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.
    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference
    in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

    Fair enough. In particular notice the puberty comment. It seems reasonable to speculate that matters for most of the differences IMO.

    Table 2 is a good summary of the effect sizes seen (pardon the formatting, I really wish there was a way to format tables better in comments here):

    Effect Sizes (n  124) for Psychological Gender Differences, Based on Meta-Analyses, Categorized by
    Range of Magnitude
    Effect sizes | Effect size ranges 0–0.10 0.11–0.35 0.36–0.65 0.66–1.00 1.0
    Number 37 59 19 7 2
    % of total 30 48 15 6 2

    Figure 1 shows how small a 0.21 SD mean shift appears, but even that difference is enough to result in a >50% overrepresentation at the 2SD level per Emil’s calculator (an incredibly useful tool for making tail effect conversations concrete): http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    At 0.4 the overrepresentation becomes almost 2:1 and at 0.8 the overrepresentation is over 4:1. And this is without taking into account any possibly increased variance.

    So it looks like the big difference lies in the tail effects. For most of these the averages aren’t that different. Let’s take a look at some of the larger effect sizes (including some additional detail on the five factors model) and see how they align with all of those horrible unjustified stereotypes:

    Table 1
    Study and variable | Age | No. of reports | d
    DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents 5* 0.76
    Spatial perception All 92 0.44
    Mental rotation All 78 0.56
    Spatial visualization All 116 0.19
    Smiling Adolescents and adults 418 -0.40
    Smiling: Aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 295 -0.46
    Smiling: Not aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 31 -0.19
    Aggression (all types) All 69 0.50
    Physical aggression All 26 0.60
    Verbal aggression All 6 0.43
    Helping: Surveillance context Adults 16 0.74
    Neuroticism: Anxiety Adolescents and adults 13* -0.32
    Neuroticism: Impulsiveness Adolescents and adults 6* -0.01
    Extraversion: Gregariousness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.07
    Extraversion: Assertiveness Adolescents and adults 10* 0.51
    Extraversion: Activity Adolescents and adults 5 0.08
    Openness Adolescents and adults 4* 0.19
    Agreeableness: Trust Adolescents and adults 4* -0.35
    Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.91
    Conscientiousness Adolescents and adults 4 -0.18
    Body esteem All — 0.58
    Balance 3–20 years 67 0.09
    Grip strength 3–20 years 37 0.66
    Throw velocity 3–20 years 12 2.18
    Throw distance 3–20 years 47 1.98
    Vertical jump 3–20 years 20 0.18
    Sprinting 3–20 years 66 0.63
    Flexibility 5–10 years 13 -0.29
    Moral reasoning: Justice orientation All 95 0.19
    Moral reasoning: Care orientation All 160 0.28
    Computer use: Current All 18 0.33
    Computer self-efficacy All 29 0.41

    Argh. The signs for the ds did not survive cut and paste. Added negative signs (meaning females have a higher trait average) by hand so probably best to double check any you really care about.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    All in all Table 1 makes a good summary of sex difference magnitudes. I’m not sure how much to trust the absolute values given the bias of the authors, but they are probably in the ballpark.

    This comment is too long already so I’ll comment on the SSC post itself elsewhere.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.

    Agreed. And it looks like Damore used some forethought (e.g. the NLRB complaint coming first) and intends to fight. This could get interesting. I hope Peter Thiel gets involved. This was a good quote: http://www.newsweek.com/who-james-damore-alt-right-furious-after-google-fires-engineer-over-anti-647716

    Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Theil’s investment firm Thiel Capital, wrote a widely shared tweet to Google asking the company to stop “teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”

    Does anyone know if Google offered Damore a payout in return for signing a hold harmless agreement?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn't take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything - that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was "not OK" and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.
    , @Desiderius

    taking the SJW view seriously
     
    You have not done so.

    Taking the SJW view seriously requires recognizing its bad faith and its purpose. All you have done is to advertise your lack of understanding.
    , @Romanian
    Amazing. Thanks for that!
  61. Jack D says:
    @res
    Thanks! I should have guessed SlateStarCodex would be a good place to go for a relatively sane look at least taking the SJW view seriously.

    First, the Adam Grant post Scott linked (for rebuttal) looks like a decent entree to some key papers attempting to justify the "minimal gender differences" POV. Both of these are not available freely unless you look:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-22162-004
    It is worth noting the single author of the first is one of the authors of the second. So looks like they are cherry picking one sides views (surprise!), but the papers look at least worth engaging.

    The 2010 paper focused on math skill finding an overall Cohen's d of 0.05 (Roughly speaking, difference in means expressed in SD units. As an analogy, this would be less than one IQ point) and a variance ratio of 1.08 in a meta-analysis. Looking at Table 2 (breaking out subgroup differences) was interesting. First, the abilities subgroups ALL had a d of 0.07 or higher (curious how that was massaged down to an overall 0.05 average). The studies were highly biased towards general ability (
    304 studies), but the highly selective ability category had 27 studies giving a d of 0.40 (which is enough to matter). In addition the high school studies gave a d of 0.23 and for college 0.18. So it looks like the inclusion of pre-pubertal data decreases the d (big surprise there). There were only 7 adult studies giving a d of -0.07 which I found surprising.

    It would be interesting to see a more thorough deconstruction by someone familiar with the literature, but my two tentative takeaway conclusions are:
    - Less difference than I would have expected in the general population.
    - But a significant difference in high ability, high school, and college groups.

    The 2010 paper serves as a good example of the type of study which is aggregated in the 2005 paper. In particular notice the importance of populations studied as reflected in the subgroups analysis.

    The 2005 paper covers a breadth of characteristics (124 in all). First, let's mention the exceptions they acknowledge:

    The Exceptions
    As noted earlier, the gender similarities hypothesis does not assert that males and females are similar in absolutely every domain. The exceptions—areas in which gender differences are moderate or large in magnitude—should be recognized.
    The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the domain of motor performance, particularly for measures such as throwing velocity (d  2.18) and throwing distance (d  1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
    muscle mass and bone size widens.
    A second area in which large gender differences are found is some—but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.
    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference
    in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

     

    Fair enough. In particular notice the puberty comment. It seems reasonable to speculate that matters for most of the differences IMO.

    Table 2 is a good summary of the effect sizes seen (pardon the formatting, I really wish there was a way to format tables better in comments here):


    Effect Sizes (n  124) for Psychological Gender Differences, Based on Meta-Analyses, Categorized by
    Range of Magnitude
    Effect sizes | Effect size ranges 0–0.10 0.11–0.35 0.36–0.65 0.66–1.00 1.0
    Number 37 59 19 7 2
    % of total 30 48 15 6 2

     

    Figure 1 shows how small a 0.21 SD mean shift appears, but even that difference is enough to result in a >50% overrepresentation at the 2SD level per Emil's calculator (an incredibly useful tool for making tail effect conversations concrete): http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    At 0.4 the overrepresentation becomes almost 2:1 and at 0.8 the overrepresentation is over 4:1. And this is without taking into account any possibly increased variance.

    So it looks like the big difference lies in the tail effects. For most of these the averages aren't that different. Let's take a look at some of the larger effect sizes (including some additional detail on the five factors model) and see how they align with all of those horrible unjustified stereotypes:

    Table 1
    Study and variable | Age | No. of reports | d
    DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents 5* 0.76
    Spatial perception All 92 0.44
    Mental rotation All 78 0.56
    Spatial visualization All 116 0.19
    Smiling Adolescents and adults 418 -0.40
    Smiling: Aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 295 -0.46
    Smiling: Not aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 31 -0.19
    Aggression (all types) All 69 0.50
    Physical aggression All 26 0.60
    Verbal aggression All 6 0.43
    Helping: Surveillance context Adults 16 0.74
    Neuroticism: Anxiety Adolescents and adults 13* -0.32
    Neuroticism: Impulsiveness Adolescents and adults 6* -0.01
    Extraversion: Gregariousness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.07
    Extraversion: Assertiveness Adolescents and adults 10* 0.51
    Extraversion: Activity Adolescents and adults 5 0.08
    Openness Adolescents and adults 4* 0.19
    Agreeableness: Trust Adolescents and adults 4* -0.35
    Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.91
    Conscientiousness Adolescents and adults 4 -0.18
    Body esteem All — 0.58
    Balance 3–20 years 67 0.09
    Grip strength 3–20 years 37 0.66
    Throw velocity 3–20 years 12 2.18
    Throw distance 3–20 years 47 1.98
    Vertical jump 3–20 years 20 0.18
    Sprinting 3–20 years 66 0.63
    Flexibility 5–10 years 13 -0.29
    Moral reasoning: Justice orientation All 95 0.19
    Moral reasoning: Care orientation All 160 0.28
    Computer use: Current All 18 0.33
    Computer self-efficacy All 29 0.41

     

    Argh. The signs for the ds did not survive cut and paste. Added negative signs (meaning females have a higher trait average) by hand so probably best to double check any you really care about.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    All in all Table 1 makes a good summary of sex difference magnitudes. I'm not sure how much to trust the absolute values given the bias of the authors, but they are probably in the ballpark.

    This comment is too long already so I'll comment on the SSC post itself elsewhere.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.
     
    Agreed. And it looks like Damore used some forethought (e.g. the NLRB complaint coming first) and intends to fight. This could get interesting. I hope Peter Thiel gets involved. This was a good quote: http://www.newsweek.com/who-james-damore-alt-right-furious-after-google-fires-engineer-over-anti-647716

    Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Theil’s investment firm Thiel Capital, wrote a widely shared tweet to Google asking the company to stop “teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”
     
    Does anyone know if Google offered Damore a payout in return for signing a hold harmless agreement?

    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn’t take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything – that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was “not OK” and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Agreed with your first and last sentences. I just can't believe Google's legal department would pass up a chance to eliminate the lawsuit risk. Something disrespectful like "leave immediately (with a hostile escort out and not allowed to take personal effects, they can be sent later) but we will condescend to give you two weeks salary in lieu of notice if you agree not to sue" sounds about right to me. Or even just try to get him to sign by agreeing that Google will adhere to their legal obligations regarding things like unused vacation pay (i.e. getting something for nothing). I guess I am just curious about the details. It would help me decide just how far to sink my regard for Google. Ten years ago I never would have guessed Google would be making Microsoft look good by comparison. I wonder what Larry and Sergey really think of this.
    , @anonguy

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?
     
    Guys have much more weight to vertically launch. If it was normalized for that, I'm sure it would show a wide difference.
    , @anonguy

    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn’t take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything – that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was “not OK” and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.
     
    BS. They'd have been more than happy to offer him tons for an NDA.

    This whole thing is a setup by Damore. Whether or not Google deserves to be set up is a different question, but there is no doubt Damore planned this evolution.

    The guy saw the opportunity for a payday and is going for the full monty rather than half of the enchilada

  62. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius

    Has anyone seen any negative response to Damore’s memo that actually engaged with his arguments in an analytical fashion?

     

    The article the following is responding to is the closest I've found.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

    I don't think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are. They believe they are engaged in a negative-sum struggle for power where narrative trumps truth, to the extent such a concept has any meaning. So even if blatant misrepresentation/no-platforming could be hypothetically problematic in a vacuum, the reality (to them) of oppression means that no holds are barred.

    My guess is that they've chosen poor ground for this particular battle.

    I don’t think anyone on our side has done a very good job understanding why the other is behaving as they are.

    I disagree. Once you understand SJWism (like other totalitarian -isms such as Communism) as a utopian religion rather than a mere political party then their behavior makes perfect sense. Mere facts and reason are no match for faith and the desire to bring about the messianic period. If I tell a religious believer that there’s no way you could build a boat with 2 of every species or that every human egg must be fertilized by human sperm in order to make a baby it’s a waste of breath because the believer will never engage with you on the level of mere proof and logic. The believer will accept any argument, no matter how weak, that confirms his or her faith but those that contradict it are automatically deemed invalid no matter how many scientific studies back them. The true believer has no problem seeing thru the lies of other belief systems. But to a believer, his religion is not even a religion, it’s just the simple and unquestionable revealed truth. It goes without saying that those who refuse to see the truth (heretics) deserve to be crushed for turning their back on goodness and embracing Satan. They have only brought this upon themselves.

    Read More
  63. res says:
    @Jack D
    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn't take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything - that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was "not OK" and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.

    Agreed with your first and last sentences. I just can’t believe Google’s legal department would pass up a chance to eliminate the lawsuit risk. Something disrespectful like “leave immediately (with a hostile escort out and not allowed to take personal effects, they can be sent later) but we will condescend to give you two weeks salary in lieu of notice if you agree not to sue” sounds about right to me. Or even just try to get him to sign by agreeing that Google will adhere to their legal obligations regarding things like unused vacation pay (i.e. getting something for nothing). I guess I am just curious about the details. It would help me decide just how far to sink my regard for Google. Ten years ago I never would have guessed Google would be making Microsoft look good by comparison. I wonder what Larry and Sergey really think of this.

    Read More
  64. anonguy says:
    @The Z Blog
    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.

    Every day, I get a little more optimistic.

    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.

    You think Google lawyers are stupid and didn’t think of your option?

    Damore turned a deal down, doubtlessly, forced Google to fire him to get him out the door. I’m sure Google hated to do it knowing the obvious repercussions. See my other comment that Damore is a right wing clock boy who staged this whole thing, probably for a payoff in court.

    Just a big coincidence that his manifesto was posted in the wake of his NRLB complaint, right?

    He’s a scuzz ball.

    Read More
    • Troll: The Z Blog
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Damore is a right wing clock boy
     
    Are saying that the respective subjects of Damore’s and Clockboy’s complaints are logically and morally equivalent?

    Dude works at Google, he knows exactly what sort of impact such a memo would have.
     
    So this is good, right? Seems he was well placed for a bit of righteous ‘disruption.’ I don’t quite understand your objection.
  65. anonguy says:
    @Jack D
    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn't take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything - that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was "not OK" and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    Guys have much more weight to vertically launch. If it was normalized for that, I’m sure it would show a wide difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That's a good thought, but I would have expected men to still have a superior power (muscle) to weight ratio. I suppose part of the reason is that lower body strength is closer between the sexes than upper body strength.

    This page indicates a 4" difference between men and women: http://theexercisers.com/how-to-increase-vertical-jump/average-vertical-jump/

    This research paper gives the following numbers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684376/table/t1-mjms-20-1-039/

    Vertical jump (cm) Mean (SD) Male 62.93 (7.34) Female 42.71 (4.96)
    So we are looking at a 20cm (4") difference with a pooled SD around 6cm giving a d of >3 rather than the <0.3 from that paper. This study was of 18-24 year old athletes so not representative though.
  66. anonguy says:
    @Jack D
    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn't take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything - that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was "not OK" and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.

    Even if they offered him a severance package, it sounds like he didn’t take it because he is threatening to sue (although who know, maybe this is a tactic to exact a higher offer). But I doubt that they offered him anything – that would be inconsistent with their statement that what he did was “not OK” and was grounds for immediate termination. It would also tend to piss off the SJWs who really wanted him not just fired but utterly destroyed so no one else will ever do what he did again. A nice severance package to keep him on his feet until he finds a new job is not sufficiently in terrorem.

    BS. They’d have been more than happy to offer him tons for an NDA.

    This whole thing is a setup by Damore. Whether or not Google deserves to be set up is a different question, but there is no doubt Damore planned this evolution.

    The guy saw the opportunity for a payday and is going for the full monty rather than half of the enchilada

    Read More
  67. anonguy says:
    @Anon
    Related: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/google-honors-bin-laden-supporter-with-google-doodle/

    This feels like a big milemarker in terms of how we live now. Brendan Eich, James Watson, Tim Hunt, Stephanie Grace, Jason Richwine, Larry Summers all got fired for saying some pretty mild and reasonable things. Goes to show we live in some pretty close minded times...

    This feels like a big milemarker in terms of how we live now. Brendan Eich, James Watson, Tim Hunt, Stephanie Grace, Jason Richwine, Larry Summers all got fired for saying some pretty mild and reasonable things. Goes to show we live in some pretty close minded times…

    Nothing new under the sun. Neo-Victorianism, this time the prudishness is about race, not sex.

    1914-1989 was just a respite, since the end of the Cold War it has been back to the future a la La Belle Epoque.

    QED.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    See my other comment that Damore is a right wing clock boy who staged this whole thing, probably for a payoff in court.
     
    Vaguely right wing white men are a protected class? Who knew?
  68. @anonguy

    This feels like a big milemarker in terms of how we live now. Brendan Eich, James Watson, Tim Hunt, Stephanie Grace, Jason Richwine, Larry Summers all got fired for saying some pretty mild and reasonable things. Goes to show we live in some pretty close minded times…
     
    Nothing new under the sun. Neo-Victorianism, this time the prudishness is about race, not sex.

    1914-1989 was just a respite, since the end of the Cold War it has been back to the future a la La Belle Epoque.

    QED.

    See my other comment that Damore is a right wing clock boy who staged this whole thing, probably for a payoff in court.

    Vaguely right wing white men are a protected class? Who knew?

    Read More
  69. res says:
    @anonguy

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?
     
    Guys have much more weight to vertically launch. If it was normalized for that, I'm sure it would show a wide difference.

    That’s a good thought, but I would have expected men to still have a superior power (muscle) to weight ratio. I suppose part of the reason is that lower body strength is closer between the sexes than upper body strength.

    This page indicates a 4″ difference between men and women: http://theexercisers.com/how-to-increase-vertical-jump/average-vertical-jump/

    This research paper gives the following numbers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684376/table/t1-mjms-20-1-039/

    Vertical jump (cm) Mean (SD) Male 62.93 (7.34) Female 42.71 (4.96)
    So we are looking at a 20cm (4″) difference with a pooled SD around 6cm giving a d of >3 rather than the <0.3 from that paper. This study was of 18-24 year old athletes so not representative though.

    Read More
  70. @res
    Thanks! I should have guessed SlateStarCodex would be a good place to go for a relatively sane look at least taking the SJW view seriously.

    First, the Adam Grant post Scott linked (for rebuttal) looks like a decent entree to some key papers attempting to justify the "minimal gender differences" POV. Both of these are not available freely unless you look:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-22162-004
    It is worth noting the single author of the first is one of the authors of the second. So looks like they are cherry picking one sides views (surprise!), but the papers look at least worth engaging.

    The 2010 paper focused on math skill finding an overall Cohen's d of 0.05 (Roughly speaking, difference in means expressed in SD units. As an analogy, this would be less than one IQ point) and a variance ratio of 1.08 in a meta-analysis. Looking at Table 2 (breaking out subgroup differences) was interesting. First, the abilities subgroups ALL had a d of 0.07 or higher (curious how that was massaged down to an overall 0.05 average). The studies were highly biased towards general ability (
    304 studies), but the highly selective ability category had 27 studies giving a d of 0.40 (which is enough to matter). In addition the high school studies gave a d of 0.23 and for college 0.18. So it looks like the inclusion of pre-pubertal data decreases the d (big surprise there). There were only 7 adult studies giving a d of -0.07 which I found surprising.

    It would be interesting to see a more thorough deconstruction by someone familiar with the literature, but my two tentative takeaway conclusions are:
    - Less difference than I would have expected in the general population.
    - But a significant difference in high ability, high school, and college groups.

    The 2010 paper serves as a good example of the type of study which is aggregated in the 2005 paper. In particular notice the importance of populations studied as reflected in the subgroups analysis.

    The 2005 paper covers a breadth of characteristics (124 in all). First, let's mention the exceptions they acknowledge:

    The Exceptions
    As noted earlier, the gender similarities hypothesis does not assert that males and females are similar in absolutely every domain. The exceptions—areas in which gender differences are moderate or large in magnitude—should be recognized.
    The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the domain of motor performance, particularly for measures such as throwing velocity (d  2.18) and throwing distance (d  1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
    muscle mass and bone size widens.
    A second area in which large gender differences are found is some—but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.
    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference
    in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

     

    Fair enough. In particular notice the puberty comment. It seems reasonable to speculate that matters for most of the differences IMO.

    Table 2 is a good summary of the effect sizes seen (pardon the formatting, I really wish there was a way to format tables better in comments here):


    Effect Sizes (n  124) for Psychological Gender Differences, Based on Meta-Analyses, Categorized by
    Range of Magnitude
    Effect sizes | Effect size ranges 0–0.10 0.11–0.35 0.36–0.65 0.66–1.00 1.0
    Number 37 59 19 7 2
    % of total 30 48 15 6 2

     

    Figure 1 shows how small a 0.21 SD mean shift appears, but even that difference is enough to result in a >50% overrepresentation at the 2SD level per Emil's calculator (an incredibly useful tool for making tail effect conversations concrete): http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    At 0.4 the overrepresentation becomes almost 2:1 and at 0.8 the overrepresentation is over 4:1. And this is without taking into account any possibly increased variance.

    So it looks like the big difference lies in the tail effects. For most of these the averages aren't that different. Let's take a look at some of the larger effect sizes (including some additional detail on the five factors model) and see how they align with all of those horrible unjustified stereotypes:

    Table 1
    Study and variable | Age | No. of reports | d
    DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents 5* 0.76
    Spatial perception All 92 0.44
    Mental rotation All 78 0.56
    Spatial visualization All 116 0.19
    Smiling Adolescents and adults 418 -0.40
    Smiling: Aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 295 -0.46
    Smiling: Not aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 31 -0.19
    Aggression (all types) All 69 0.50
    Physical aggression All 26 0.60
    Verbal aggression All 6 0.43
    Helping: Surveillance context Adults 16 0.74
    Neuroticism: Anxiety Adolescents and adults 13* -0.32
    Neuroticism: Impulsiveness Adolescents and adults 6* -0.01
    Extraversion: Gregariousness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.07
    Extraversion: Assertiveness Adolescents and adults 10* 0.51
    Extraversion: Activity Adolescents and adults 5 0.08
    Openness Adolescents and adults 4* 0.19
    Agreeableness: Trust Adolescents and adults 4* -0.35
    Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.91
    Conscientiousness Adolescents and adults 4 -0.18
    Body esteem All — 0.58
    Balance 3–20 years 67 0.09
    Grip strength 3–20 years 37 0.66
    Throw velocity 3–20 years 12 2.18
    Throw distance 3–20 years 47 1.98
    Vertical jump 3–20 years 20 0.18
    Sprinting 3–20 years 66 0.63
    Flexibility 5–10 years 13 -0.29
    Moral reasoning: Justice orientation All 95 0.19
    Moral reasoning: Care orientation All 160 0.28
    Computer use: Current All 18 0.33
    Computer self-efficacy All 29 0.41

     

    Argh. The signs for the ds did not survive cut and paste. Added negative signs (meaning females have a higher trait average) by hand so probably best to double check any you really care about.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    All in all Table 1 makes a good summary of sex difference magnitudes. I'm not sure how much to trust the absolute values given the bias of the authors, but they are probably in the ballpark.

    This comment is too long already so I'll comment on the SSC post itself elsewhere.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.
     
    Agreed. And it looks like Damore used some forethought (e.g. the NLRB complaint coming first) and intends to fight. This could get interesting. I hope Peter Thiel gets involved. This was a good quote: http://www.newsweek.com/who-james-damore-alt-right-furious-after-google-fires-engineer-over-anti-647716

    Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Theil’s investment firm Thiel Capital, wrote a widely shared tweet to Google asking the company to stop “teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”
     
    Does anyone know if Google offered Damore a payout in return for signing a hold harmless agreement?

    taking the SJW view seriously

    You have not done so.

    Taking the SJW view seriously requires recognizing its bad faith and its purpose. All you have done is to advertise your lack of understanding.

    Read More
  71. anonguy says:
    @res
    That's a good thought, but I would have expected men to still have a superior power (muscle) to weight ratio. I suppose part of the reason is that lower body strength is closer between the sexes than upper body strength.

    This page indicates a 4" difference between men and women: http://theexercisers.com/how-to-increase-vertical-jump/average-vertical-jump/

    This research paper gives the following numbers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684376/table/t1-mjms-20-1-039/

    Vertical jump (cm) Mean (SD) Male 62.93 (7.34) Female 42.71 (4.96)
    So we are looking at a 20cm (4") difference with a pooled SD around 6cm giving a d of >3 rather than the <0.3 from that paper. This study was of 18-24 year old athletes so not representative though.

    You’re good, res, no doubt about that.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    To be clear, res is outstanding. He's just using the wrong tool for the job here.
  72. @anonguy
    You're good, res, no doubt about that.

    To be clear, res is outstanding. He’s just using the wrong tool for the job here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    One of my weaknesses. I appreciate the feedback.
  73. res says:
    @Desiderius
    To be clear, res is outstanding. He's just using the wrong tool for the job here.

    One of my weaknesses. I appreciate the feedback.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    In the greater scheme of things not a weakness at all but the greatest strength there is.

    https://harvarduniversitychoir.bandcamp.com/track/ren-clausen-set-me-as-a-seal
  74. @anonguy

    The ham handedness and stupidity on display here is heartening. The smart play here is to bring the guy in and pay him off quietly, with an ironclad NDA. Then Babu can fly in on his magic carpet and offer some soothing thoughts. The whole thing blows over and is forgotten.

    Instead, they will make the heretic a hero.
     
    You think Google lawyers are stupid and didn't think of your option?

    Damore turned a deal down, doubtlessly, forced Google to fire him to get him out the door. I'm sure Google hated to do it knowing the obvious repercussions. See my other comment that Damore is a right wing clock boy who staged this whole thing, probably for a payoff in court.

    Just a big coincidence that his manifesto was posted in the wake of his NRLB complaint, right?

    He's a scuzz ball.

    Damore is a right wing clock boy

    Are saying that the respective subjects of Damore’s and Clockboy’s complaints are logically and morally equivalent?

    Dude works at Google, he knows exactly what sort of impact such a memo would have.

    So this is good, right? Seems he was well placed for a bit of righteous ‘disruption.’ I don’t quite understand your objection.

    Read More
  75. gregor says:

    However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.

    Ha, dismissing psychometric data with large sample sizes as “stereotypes.” They always use the word “stereotype,” but really what they mean is any form of generalization, even when well documented and prefaced with endless caveats about individual variation. If you aren’t willing to generalize at all about anything then social science is completely impossible.

    Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives.

    Google seems to have managed that just fine with male employees. A lot of companies don’t seem to need women much at all in the innovative, early stages, but then they badly need diversity in the reliable cash cow phase.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

    Statistically illiterate. If you are a woman working at Google, I don’t see why you’d invest so much of your personal self worth in the average suitability of women to do your job. Nor do I get why someone citing psychological research in a tedious memo amounts to personal harassment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Nor do I get why someone citing psychological research in a tedious memo amounts to personal harassment.
     
    Female solipsism.

    The reception of the memo suggests it may not be so tedious as it would appear.
  76. @res
    One of my weaknesses. I appreciate the feedback.

    In the greater scheme of things not a weakness at all but the greatest strength there is.

    https://harvarduniversitychoir.bandcamp.com/track/ren-clausen-set-me-as-a-seal

    Read More
  77. @gregor

    However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.
     
    Ha, dismissing psychometric data with large sample sizes as "stereotypes." They always use the word "stereotype," but really what they mean is any form of generalization, even when well documented and prefaced with endless caveats about individual variation. If you aren't willing to generalize at all about anything then social science is completely impossible.

    Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives.
     
    Google seems to have managed that just fine with male employees. A lot of companies don't seem to need women much at all in the innovative, early stages, but then they badly need diversity in the reliable cash cow phase.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
     
    Statistically illiterate. If you are a woman working at Google, I don't see why you'd invest so much of your personal self worth in the average suitability of women to do your job. Nor do I get why someone citing psychological research in a tedious memo amounts to personal harassment.

    Nor do I get why someone citing psychological research in a tedious memo amounts to personal harassment.

    Female solipsism.

    The reception of the memo suggests it may not be so tedious as it would appear.

    Read More
  78. Romanian says: • Website
    @res
    Thanks! I should have guessed SlateStarCodex would be a good place to go for a relatively sane look at least taking the SJW view seriously.

    First, the Adam Grant post Scott linked (for rebuttal) looks like a decent entree to some key papers attempting to justify the "minimal gender differences" POV. Both of these are not available freely unless you look:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001
    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-22162-004
    It is worth noting the single author of the first is one of the authors of the second. So looks like they are cherry picking one sides views (surprise!), but the papers look at least worth engaging.

    The 2010 paper focused on math skill finding an overall Cohen's d of 0.05 (Roughly speaking, difference in means expressed in SD units. As an analogy, this would be less than one IQ point) and a variance ratio of 1.08 in a meta-analysis. Looking at Table 2 (breaking out subgroup differences) was interesting. First, the abilities subgroups ALL had a d of 0.07 or higher (curious how that was massaged down to an overall 0.05 average). The studies were highly biased towards general ability (
    304 studies), but the highly selective ability category had 27 studies giving a d of 0.40 (which is enough to matter). In addition the high school studies gave a d of 0.23 and for college 0.18. So it looks like the inclusion of pre-pubertal data decreases the d (big surprise there). There were only 7 adult studies giving a d of -0.07 which I found surprising.

    It would be interesting to see a more thorough deconstruction by someone familiar with the literature, but my two tentative takeaway conclusions are:
    - Less difference than I would have expected in the general population.
    - But a significant difference in high ability, high school, and college groups.

    The 2010 paper serves as a good example of the type of study which is aggregated in the 2005 paper. In particular notice the importance of populations studied as reflected in the subgroups analysis.

    The 2005 paper covers a breadth of characteristics (124 in all). First, let's mention the exceptions they acknowledge:

    The Exceptions
    As noted earlier, the gender similarities hypothesis does not assert that males and females are similar in absolutely every domain. The exceptions—areas in which gender differences are moderate or large in magnitude—should be recognized.
    The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the domain of motor performance, particularly for measures such as throwing velocity (d  2.18) and throwing distance (d  1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
    muscle mass and bone size widens.
    A second area in which large gender differences are found is some—but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.
    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference
    in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

     

    Fair enough. In particular notice the puberty comment. It seems reasonable to speculate that matters for most of the differences IMO.

    Table 2 is a good summary of the effect sizes seen (pardon the formatting, I really wish there was a way to format tables better in comments here):


    Effect Sizes (n  124) for Psychological Gender Differences, Based on Meta-Analyses, Categorized by
    Range of Magnitude
    Effect sizes | Effect size ranges 0–0.10 0.11–0.35 0.36–0.65 0.66–1.00 1.0
    Number 37 59 19 7 2
    % of total 30 48 15 6 2

     

    Figure 1 shows how small a 0.21 SD mean shift appears, but even that difference is enough to result in a >50% overrepresentation at the 2SD level per Emil's calculator (an incredibly useful tool for making tail effect conversations concrete): http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    At 0.4 the overrepresentation becomes almost 2:1 and at 0.8 the overrepresentation is over 4:1. And this is without taking into account any possibly increased variance.

    So it looks like the big difference lies in the tail effects. For most of these the averages aren't that different. Let's take a look at some of the larger effect sizes (including some additional detail on the five factors model) and see how they align with all of those horrible unjustified stereotypes:

    Table 1
    Study and variable | Age | No. of reports | d
    DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents 5* 0.76
    Spatial perception All 92 0.44
    Mental rotation All 78 0.56
    Spatial visualization All 116 0.19
    Smiling Adolescents and adults 418 -0.40
    Smiling: Aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 295 -0.46
    Smiling: Not aware of being observed Adolescents and adults 31 -0.19
    Aggression (all types) All 69 0.50
    Physical aggression All 26 0.60
    Verbal aggression All 6 0.43
    Helping: Surveillance context Adults 16 0.74
    Neuroticism: Anxiety Adolescents and adults 13* -0.32
    Neuroticism: Impulsiveness Adolescents and adults 6* -0.01
    Extraversion: Gregariousness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.07
    Extraversion: Assertiveness Adolescents and adults 10* 0.51
    Extraversion: Activity Adolescents and adults 5 0.08
    Openness Adolescents and adults 4* 0.19
    Agreeableness: Trust Adolescents and adults 4* -0.35
    Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults 10* -0.91
    Conscientiousness Adolescents and adults 4 -0.18
    Body esteem All — 0.58
    Balance 3–20 years 67 0.09
    Grip strength 3–20 years 37 0.66
    Throw velocity 3–20 years 12 2.18
    Throw distance 3–20 years 47 1.98
    Vertical jump 3–20 years 20 0.18
    Sprinting 3–20 years 66 0.63
    Flexibility 5–10 years 13 -0.29
    Moral reasoning: Justice orientation All 95 0.19
    Moral reasoning: Care orientation All 160 0.28
    Computer use: Current All 18 0.33
    Computer self-efficacy All 29 0.41

     

    Argh. The signs for the ds did not survive cut and paste. Added negative signs (meaning females have a higher trait average) by hand so probably best to double check any you really care about.

    I was quite surprised by the small vertical jump difference. Thoughts?

    All in all Table 1 makes a good summary of sex difference magnitudes. I'm not sure how much to trust the absolute values given the bias of the authors, but they are probably in the ballpark.

    This comment is too long already so I'll comment on the SSC post itself elsewhere.

    My guess is that they’ve chosen poor ground for this particular battle.
     
    Agreed. And it looks like Damore used some forethought (e.g. the NLRB complaint coming first) and intends to fight. This could get interesting. I hope Peter Thiel gets involved. This was a good quote: http://www.newsweek.com/who-james-damore-alt-right-furious-after-google-fires-engineer-over-anti-647716

    Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Theil’s investment firm Thiel Capital, wrote a widely shared tweet to Google asking the company to stop “teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”
     
    Does anyone know if Google offered Damore a payout in return for signing a hold harmless agreement?

    Amazing. Thanks for that!

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored