The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Why Are Damore's Observations About Statistical Distributions Assumed to be Inevitably Aspersions on Women _already_ Hired by Google?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Imagine if in an Alternative Universe in which the media’s diversity dogmas were based on their ostensible logic rather than on sheer “Who? Whom?” childishness, somebody asked Cleveland Cavalier all-time great LeBron James:

Q. “Why is there so little diversity and racial equality in the NBA?”

LeBron: “Well, I think we could be doing a little better outreach to under-represented ethnicities to show them what a great sport basketball is, but, yeah, basically, at the highest levels, blacks tend to be a little better than whites at basketball.”

Q. “Didn’t your stereotyping just create a Hostile Work Environment for your white teammates like Kevin Love? How can Kevin Love continue to play on the same team with a hate-filled bigot like yourself who doesn’t believe he deserves to be in the NBA?”

LeBron: “Wait a minute, I didn’t say that Kevin Love doesn’t deserve to be in the NBA. In fact, I specifically insisted that the Cavs sign Kevin as part of my plan to return to my home region and win Cleveland an NBA title, which we did. Granted, Kevin looked a little dorkier while defensively shutting down NBA MVP Steph Curry in the last minute of the seventh game of the 2016 Finals than, say, I might have … But damn that white boy got the job done when it mattered!”

Q. “But if whites are genetically inferior to blacks at basketball, then aren’t you saying that all the whites in the NBA don’t belong there.”

LeBron: “No. Stop being stupid. The whites in the NBA belong in the NBA or they wouldn’t be in the NBA. We don’t have special diversity programs to hire whites who aren’t really good enough to play in the NBA. What I am saying is that there probably aren’t a huge number of whites who aren’t in the NBA who belong in the NBA but are being kept out of the NBA by anti-white racism.

“I’m not saying that there is no anti-white racism, just that it doesn’t explain most of The Gap. You know, maybe we need to think about why more and more whites in the NBA come from Europe or Canada or super white small cities in the Pacific Northwest. Maybe we’d discover that there are changes we could make in basketball culture to get a few more white NBA players out of the suburbs of big American cities. But in the big picture, not much will or can change. Basketball talent is what it is.”

“Sure, if Adam Silver ordered each NBA team to be half-white, then there’d be a lot of white guys sitting on the far end of NBA benches who wouldn’t really belong in the league. But we don’t have quotas, so we don’t have white deadwood in the League.”

Q. “But if you are saying that whites aren’t inferior in basketball, then why are you The Man on the Cavaliers? Why isn’t Kevin Love your Co-Man? Or, more appropriately, why aren’t you both the Co-Persons on the Cavs?”

LeBron: “Hey, thanks for the questions but I got to go lift some weights. Bye.”

 
    []
  1. Forbes says:

    Pretty amusing. Though, the $64,000 question is: Does the diversity crowd even “get it”?

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Barnard
    People have bringing up the discrepancy in race in pro football and basketball for at least thirty years in research to affirmative action. Most of the diversity crowd won't even engage the argument.
    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/why-are-damores-observations-about-statistical-distributions-assumed-to-be-inevitably-aspersions-on-women-already-hired-by-google/#comment-1963593
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. eah says:

    Why were they considered to be aspersions? — on video he seems like a rather milquetoast kind of guy — what he wrote was not mean-spirited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    To a woman, if you're talking about any woman or the abstract idea of womanhood, you're talking about HER, specifically. Especially if you're what you're saying is negative. So if you say that females statistically make poorer Google hires, you're saying to every women reading that SHE is dumber than you and doesn't belong there.

    It's just that sort of thinking from subjective feelz that makes women such great scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and responsible adults in general. How could you think possibly think different?

    By the way, is it even possible for these people to think their pissy reactions could be making the case they accuse this guy of making? Even though he's not strictly making it, though I am.
    , @Zozo poaster
    ^
    Outed as xoxohth poatser.
  3. guest says:

    The world doesn’t run on Kevin Love-feelz, or white male feelz in general. It runs on woman-feelz.

    Unless those feelz happen to conflict with the feelz of: blacks, Muslims, men pretending to be women, orcs, goblins, illegal aliens, halfbreeds, and various other human subgenre.

    Read More
  4. guest says:
    @eah
    Why were they considered to be aspersions? -- on video he seems like a rather milquetoast kind of guy -- what he wrote was not mean-spirited.

    To a woman, if you’re talking about any woman or the abstract idea of womanhood, you’re talking about HER, specifically. Especially if you’re what you’re saying is negative. So if you say that females statistically make poorer Google hires, you’re saying to every women reading that SHE is dumber than you and doesn’t belong there.

    It’s just that sort of thinking from subjective feelz that makes women such great scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and responsible adults in general. How could you think possibly think different?

    By the way, is it even possible for these people to think their pissy reactions could be making the case they accuse this guy of making? Even though he’s not strictly making it, though I am.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Feminism is easily the most manifestly stupid thing the left pushes (at least until "transgender" "rights" came along). It seems to me that there'd be considerably less opposition to their agenda if they'd just toss it overboard. Women are at the bottom of the victim hierarchy anyway. It's of course true that women vote more left than men, but I'm not sure how much feminism per say actually has to do with that (other than the fact that it handed them the right to do it in the first place).
  5. AndrewR says:

    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people. In some cases (probably in the case of YouTube’s transwoman CEO and google’s street-shitting CEO), the reactions can he explained by cynicism and dishonesty, but I think many cases can be explained by the individuals not understanding basic statistics and having poor reading comprehension. Our elites are definitely not the best and brightest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jay-w
    " ... many (probably most) mainstream journalists ... are legitimately stupid, dim people. ..."

    Yeah, it is mind-boggling how somebody can get to be a "journalist" while apparently having the reading comprehension skills of a not-too-bright sixth-grader.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people.
     
    You're on to something there. I have a couple of liberal friends who I spar with about politics once in a while. They say dopey things about white privilege, and post obvious hoaxes on Facebook, but one has a law degree from a decent school and the other is a Ph.D. engineer, so I tried to ignore it. But after a while it dawned on me that they just aren't all that smart. I think the lawyer got by on her aggressiveness and verbal adeptness, and the engineer was pushed through school by his family. Without getting too specific, both are "market-dominant minorities."
    , @guest
    Journalists are absolutely the stupidest tier of the intelligentsia. They're worse than educationists. If you have the least bit of intelligence, you do almost anything else.

    Check out Celebrity Jeopardy sometime. The journalists they have on there are primarily actors, of course. But they get embarrassed by the other celebs--and absolutely destroyed by comedians, who apparently are the smartest division of popular entertainer. I winced watching Wolf Blitzer.
  6. I know quite a few Googlers, mostly in the London and Zurich campuses, but a few North Americans and Aussies too.

    Very few of the top technical talent at Google is female, and that is obvious to everybody, and clearly annoys some of the women who work there.

    Not every man there is super bright, à la Damore, and women developers there are not duds, but it is a very status conscious place, and guys like Damore piss off a lot of women just by existing (and excelling seemingly without all that much effort).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JW
    Being status conscious seems true of most Silicon Valley tech companies. There's a hierarchy and people at the bottom don't much like people at the top.

    I can't blame them much. Only people at the top work on anything interesting.
    , @StillCARealist
    guys like Damore piss off a lot of women just by existing (and excelling seemingly without all that much effort).

    This gets to the very heart of the problem. women can do math and engineering, but it takes a lot more studying, concentration, and training. It's just not worth it compared to the other interesting endeavors in life. Then you see some nerdy guy who just instantly grasps a difficult problem and works toward a solution. All while you're still struggling to even understand the problem. Most women realize this somewhere along the education track and veer off into areas that they can excel at with a reasonable amount of effort.

    This really shouldn't be the big fight that everybody's making it. why not just let everyone decide what they'd like to do and not stigmatize those who get off the engineering/math bus?

    Also, the whole physics/math status game is ridiculous. A woman selling real estate can make way more money and have lots more fun than some programmer packed away in his cubicle churning out code. Being a wife and mother to a successful businessman is full of choice bennies too. So much of this is wasted furor.
  7. jay-w says:
    @AndrewR
    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people. In some cases (probably in the case of YouTube's transwoman CEO and google's street-shitting CEO), the reactions can he explained by cynicism and dishonesty, but I think many cases can be explained by the individuals not understanding basic statistics and having poor reading comprehension. Our elites are definitely not the best and brightest.

    ” … many (probably most) mainstream journalists … are legitimately stupid, dim people. …”

    Yeah, it is mind-boggling how somebody can get to be a “journalist” while apparently having the reading comprehension skills of a not-too-bright sixth-grader.

    Read More
  8. Barnard says:
    @Forbes
    Pretty amusing. Though, the $64,000 question is: Does the diversity crowd even "get it"?

    People have bringing up the discrepancy in race in pro football and basketball for at least thirty years in research to affirmative action. Most of the diversity crowd won’t even engage the argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    One of the hallmarks of religion is precisely that it does not engage with facts.

    One of the hallmarks of religious thinking is that its basic beliefs must violate natural law and daily observation and require faith.

    The diversity religion makes supernatural and counter-intuitive claims all the time. It is up to us to catalogue and analyze those...and convince first ourselves then leftists that they are the real creationists so to speak.

    I have found it possible to make inroads with diversitopians by leading them to articulate, Meno-style, their view of what constitutes religious thinking. Since most are lefty and secular, they hate religion.

    Later I can draw on this when they talk about race and point out the parallel ontological forms in their thinking. For instance the Equity Religion appears to me to be Eternal Salvation/Punishment of Sinners in another package.

    I'm writing too generally about this here...but anyway, perhaps my favorite source of insights since the early Aughts is Pascal Boyer:

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articlesReligiousThought.html

    Religious thought and behavior as by-products of brain function
    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articles/Boyer2003ReligionTiCS.pdf

    Religious ontologies and the bounds of sense: a cognitive catalogue of the supernatural
    http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Boyer.htm

    He has also written extensively on the "threat detection" and "precaution systems" aspects of cognition:
    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articlesThreatDetection.html

    I'm using his insights on that to deal with Trump Derangement Syndrome as I encounter it.
  9. JDG1980 says:

    OT: White House adviser Sebastian Gorka understands the concept of hate hoaxes. Of course, the MSM can’t stand this.

    Read More
  10. Tiny Duck says:

    Man I can’t wait for demographic change

    You white boys are going to pay fir all your slavery colonialism and racism

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Can they pay in oak?
    , @Olorin
    I already pay fir yew and balsam too.
  11. @AndrewR
    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people. In some cases (probably in the case of YouTube's transwoman CEO and google's street-shitting CEO), the reactions can he explained by cynicism and dishonesty, but I think many cases can be explained by the individuals not understanding basic statistics and having poor reading comprehension. Our elites are definitely not the best and brightest.

    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people.

    You’re on to something there. I have a couple of liberal friends who I spar with about politics once in a while. They say dopey things about white privilege, and post obvious hoaxes on Facebook, but one has a law degree from a decent school and the other is a Ph.D. engineer, so I tried to ignore it. But after a while it dawned on me that they just aren’t all that smart. I think the lawyer got by on her aggressiveness and verbal adeptness, and the engineer was pushed through school by his family. Without getting too specific, both are “market-dominant minorities.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I know many people like that. may be proficient in their respective fields, but the problem is when they try to venture into the political opinion domain despite having poorly developed reasoning skills, not being well read (outside of HuffPo articles), and being functionally innumerate (which admittedly may not apply to your engineer pal). The internet has been a blessing for those genuinely interested in learning and honest debate, but it's also amplified the voices of opinionated fools.
  12. anon says: • Disclaimer

    If he is talking about women programmers, no.

    If he is talking about women that are doing the diversity work? Ha. I think so. He just said they probably broke the law.

    Read More
  13. @Tiny Duck
    Man I can't wait for demographic change

    You white boys are going to pay fir all your slavery colonialism and racism

    Can they pay in oak?

    Read More
  14. gregor says:

    They do not even understand what a stereotype is. Going on about “nerds” or “frat bros,” which diversity nuts do constantly, is a great example of stereotyping. Looking at empirical evidence is not stereotyping. If you dismiss empirical evidence as “stereotyping” you are an idiot (and I don’t mean “on average”).

    Read More
  15. AndrewR says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people.
     
    You're on to something there. I have a couple of liberal friends who I spar with about politics once in a while. They say dopey things about white privilege, and post obvious hoaxes on Facebook, but one has a law degree from a decent school and the other is a Ph.D. engineer, so I tried to ignore it. But after a while it dawned on me that they just aren't all that smart. I think the lawyer got by on her aggressiveness and verbal adeptness, and the engineer was pushed through school by his family. Without getting too specific, both are "market-dominant minorities."

    I know many people like that. may be proficient in their respective fields, but the problem is when they try to venture into the political opinion domain despite having poorly developed reasoning skills, not being well read (outside of HuffPo articles), and being functionally innumerate (which admittedly may not apply to your engineer pal). The internet has been a blessing for those genuinely interested in learning and honest debate, but it’s also amplified the voices of opinionated fools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seneca
    Yes, I think you and Faraday's Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms "on average" or "bell curve" mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that " every member" of a group is not smart, just because "on average" they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc... )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can't reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Because SJWism wouldn’t be very effective SJWism if it didn’t cleave individuals to identity groups out of identity group grievance?

    The generalized SJW Catch-22 chain reaction:

    All group differences must be due to systemic bias and oppression. The cure for this bias is to hire more from the underrepresented group, which creates a reason to question individuals’ abilities based on their group, which creates bias which in turn requires more cure.

    Catalyst: If there are difference in average adult group ability it is because of biases that start in childhood. But it is still the hirer’s responsibility to compensate for that bias years later by lowering standards just for adults in that group.

    Really, how many times does “I feel unsafe because as a woman I’m made to feel I’m not good enough to be here” have to be met with the reply “Because there are policies to lower standards for women and you asked for them” before it clicks in people’s heads?

    “Sure, if Adam Silver ordered each NBA team to be half-white, there’d be a lot of white guys sitting on the end of NBA benches who wouldn’t really belong in the league. But we don’t have quotas, so we don’t have white deadwood in the League.”

    Is this the closest it comes to a normie-talk explanation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Relax! Lowered standards never hurt anyone!

    The officer who fatally shot Justine Damond graduated in 2015 from the city’s accelerated police cadet program. The seven-month training is a quicker, nontraditional route to policing aimed at helping those who already have a college degree enter law enforcement.

    The Minneapolis program covers tuition at Hennepin Technical College and pays trainees a $20-an-hour salary with benefits while they work to get licensed. After that their salary bumps up.
     
  17. Seneca says:
    @AndrewR
    I know many people like that. may be proficient in their respective fields, but the problem is when they try to venture into the political opinion domain despite having poorly developed reasoning skills, not being well read (outside of HuffPo articles), and being functionally innumerate (which admittedly may not apply to your engineer pal). The internet has been a blessing for those genuinely interested in learning and honest debate, but it's also amplified the voices of opinionated fools.

    Yes, I think you and Faraday’s Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms “on average” or “bell curve” mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that ” every member” of a group is not smart, just because “on average” they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc… )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can’t reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin’s Gulags, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot’s Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I've never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn't even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    , @biz
    Excellent comment. Agree completely.

    I also think that the current year makes people's lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc...
    , @PiltdownMan

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.
     
    Most people, even smart ones, are massively innumerate, and do not even possess middle-school level arithmetic instincts or a feel for numbers. Almost all are poorly read, and those who read non-fiction books to "increase their knowledge" or "broaden their horizons" are passive, uncritical consumers of received wisdom. One of the most pernicious myths in America is that our higher education system is second to none in the world in imparting critical thinking skills. It does no such thing.

    People like Steve Sailer, who read broadly, outside of their field of expertise, and who then think about what they've read, critically, before coming to their own, independent, conclusions are extremely rare in our times, perhaps less than ever before. Intellectually ornery, independent, genuinely free-thinking and opinionated Americans are mostly a thing of the past.


    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms “on average” or “bell curve” mean or imply.
     
    Most people simply assume "on average" or "mean" means modal, and broadly so.
    , @jim jones
    Most people are dumb and ignorant but they obscure their limitations by only using cliches in their conversation.
  18. songbird says:

    Someone needs to come up with an HBD gameshow to popularize the idea of traits having different means among different populations. Bring gambling into it, with the odds on screen, so people can get a feel for honest statistics.

    Read More
  19. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Because SJWism wouldn't be very effective SJWism if it didn't cleave individuals to identity groups out of identity group grievance?

    The generalized SJW Catch-22 chain reaction:

    All group differences must be due to systemic bias and oppression. The cure for this bias is to hire more from the underrepresented group, which creates a reason to question individuals' abilities based on their group, which creates bias which in turn requires more cure.

    Catalyst: If there are difference in average adult group ability it is because of biases that start in childhood. But it is still the hirer's responsibility to compensate for that bias years later by lowering standards just for adults in that group.

    Really, how many times does "I feel unsafe because as a woman I'm made to feel I'm not good enough to be here" have to be met with the reply "Because there are policies to lower standards for women and you asked for them" before it clicks in people's heads?

    “Sure, if Adam Silver ordered each NBA team to be half-white, there’d be a lot of white guys sitting on the end of NBA benches who wouldn’t really belong in the league. But we don’t have quotas, so we don’t have white deadwood in the League.”
     
    Is this the closest it comes to a normie-talk explanation?

    Relax! Lowered standards never hurt anyone!

    The officer who fatally shot Justine Damond graduated in 2015 from the city’s accelerated police cadet program. The seven-month training is a quicker, nontraditional route to policing aimed at helping those who already have a college degree enter law enforcement.

    The Minneapolis program covers tuition at Hennepin Technical College and pays trainees a $20-an-hour salary with benefits while they work to get licensed. After that their salary bumps up.

    Read More
  20. @Seneca
    Yes, I think you and Faraday's Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms "on average" or "bell curve" mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that " every member" of a group is not smart, just because "on average" they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc... )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can't reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I’ve never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn’t even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Sailer, speaking about Galton, correlations and statistics,
    here is the a riddle
    for connoisseurs of statistical processing of data (e.g. of IQ data, population data etc.)
    This riddle gives extra example of the fact that
    statistical phenomena are difficult for most people.

    For several years in a row professor was giving to graduate students the following exam problem.
    “Given 3 real random variables x, y, and z, with zero average values for each.
    Averages of their products (elements of correlation matrix) are respectively:
    xx=yy=zz=1, xy=xz=1, but yz=0.99===1-0.01.
    Calculate average value of D=(x+y+z)*(x+y+z)===(x+y+z)^2. “

    All those years graduate students made professor happy by writing
    D = xx +yy +zz +2xy +2xz+ +2yz = 9 -0.02 = 8.98.
    At some year a graduate student came, who was unable to solve the problem above.
    *
    Question (riddle): what was the matter with that student ?
     

    Resolution of the riddle (to save the public from spending time and efforts.) New student made an attempt to calculate also
    average of G = (2x-y-z)*(2x-y-z)===(2x-y-z)^2, and following the same procedure,
    he got G =4xx +yy +zz-4xy +4yz= -2/(100),
    i.e. got negative value, instead of expected non-negative !!!
    His conclusion was that the input conditions of the problem did not satisfy the property of non-negativity of probability,
    i.e. were internally contradictory, and refused to deal with the problem any further.
    , @Anonymous
    How much of that is because there didn't yet exist the mathematical machinery to would yield the necessary mathematical precision?

    But we aren't asking much of people here.

    In fact, people are seeming dumb about these and similar affairs precisely because common, fundamental reasoning patterns have been stifled when applied to certain taboo topics. Nobody has trouble understanding what it means to say that men are taller than women in general.

    Then add "It is difficult to get a woman to understand something when their salary depends upon her not understanding it."
    , @Anon
    "The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible)"

    The third, Caesar August "sending out his dogma" to have "all the world enumerated" is, of course, and obvious lie.

    Why would a census require everyone on Earth to return to their ancestor's village? And HTF would that be done, without leaving any record of the greatest migration ever?
    , @PiltdownMan

    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons.
     
    Statistical thinking and probability are, of course, entangled and completely inseparable. The parallel mystery is why nobody thought about probability and the associated math until the 17th century. At a philosophical level, probability theory could easily have happened two thousand years earlier, and would have been a fertile field of inquiry for various philosophically oriented civilizations in antiquity.

    Personally, I think a lot of the failure of college-educated people to understand even simple statistical concepts at a gut level is a failure of education. Freshman stat with a few hundred people in an auditorium is about the worst way to teach the subject.
  21. When I read Google’s reply, I was struck by the same question. My guess is the female engineers are worse than the males and are employed as lower cost labor.

    Read More
  22. biz says:
    @Seneca
    Yes, I think you and Faraday's Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms "on average" or "bell curve" mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that " every member" of a group is not smart, just because "on average" they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc... )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can't reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

    Excellent comment. Agree completely.

    I also think that the current year makes people’s lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I also think that the current year makes people’s lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc…
     
    This. Never before has so much ignorance and stupidity been displayed so shamelessly.
  23. guest says:
    @AndrewR
    I think many (probably most) mainstream journalists and others among the shitlib intelligentsia are legitimately stupid, dim people. In some cases (probably in the case of YouTube's transwoman CEO and google's street-shitting CEO), the reactions can he explained by cynicism and dishonesty, but I think many cases can be explained by the individuals not understanding basic statistics and having poor reading comprehension. Our elites are definitely not the best and brightest.

    Journalists are absolutely the stupidest tier of the intelligentsia. They’re worse than educationists. If you have the least bit of intelligence, you do almost anything else.

    Check out Celebrity Jeopardy sometime. The journalists they have on there are primarily actors, of course. But they get embarrassed by the other celebs–and absolutely destroyed by comedians, who apparently are the smartest division of popular entertainer. I winced watching Wolf Blitzer.

    Read More
  24. @Steve Sailer
    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I've never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn't even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    Dear Mr. Sailer, speaking about Galton, correlations and statistics,
    here is the a riddle
    for connoisseurs of statistical processing of data (e.g. of IQ data, population data etc.)
    This riddle gives extra example of the fact that
    statistical phenomena are difficult for most people.

    For several years in a row professor was giving to graduate students the following exam problem.
    “Given 3 real random variables x, y, and z, with zero average values for each.
    Averages of their products (elements of correlation matrix) are respectively:
    xx=yy=zz=1, xy=xz=1, but yz=0.99===1-0.01.
    Calculate average value of D=(x+y+z)*(x+y+z)===(x+y+z)^2. “

    All those years graduate students made professor happy by writing
    D = xx +yy +zz +2xy +2xz+ +2yz = 9 -0.02 = 8.98.
    At some year a graduate student came, who was unable to solve the problem above.
    *
    Question (riddle): what was the matter with that student ?

    Resolution of the riddle (to save the public from spending time and efforts.) New student made an attempt to calculate also
    average of G = (2x-y-z)*(2x-y-z)===(2x-y-z)^2, and following the same procedure,
    he got G =4xx +yy +zz-4xy +4yz= -2/(100),
    i.e. got negative value, instead of expected non-negative !!!
    His conclusion was that the input conditions of the problem did not satisfy the property of non-negativity of probability,
    i.e. were internally contradictory, and refused to deal with the problem any further.

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I've never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn't even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    How much of that is because there didn’t yet exist the mathematical machinery to would yield the necessary mathematical precision?

    But we aren’t asking much of people here.

    In fact, people are seeming dumb about these and similar affairs precisely because common, fundamental reasoning patterns have been stifled when applied to certain taboo topics. Nobody has trouble understanding what it means to say that men are taller than women in general.

    Then add “It is difficult to get a woman to understand something when their salary depends upon her not understanding it.”

    Read More
  26. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I've never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn't even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    “The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible)”

    The third, Caesar August “sending out his dogma” to have “all the world enumerated” is, of course, and obvious lie.

    Why would a census require everyone on Earth to return to their ancestor’s village? And HTF would that be done, without leaving any record of the greatest migration ever?

    Read More
  27. L Woods says:
    @guest
    To a woman, if you're talking about any woman or the abstract idea of womanhood, you're talking about HER, specifically. Especially if you're what you're saying is negative. So if you say that females statistically make poorer Google hires, you're saying to every women reading that SHE is dumber than you and doesn't belong there.

    It's just that sort of thinking from subjective feelz that makes women such great scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and responsible adults in general. How could you think possibly think different?

    By the way, is it even possible for these people to think their pissy reactions could be making the case they accuse this guy of making? Even though he's not strictly making it, though I am.

    Feminism is easily the most manifestly stupid thing the left pushes (at least until “transgender” “rights” came along). It seems to me that there’d be considerably less opposition to their agenda if they’d just toss it overboard. Women are at the bottom of the victim hierarchy anyway. It’s of course true that women vote more left than men, but I’m not sure how much feminism per say actually has to do with that (other than the fact that it handed them the right to do it in the first place).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The same reason most advertising is targeted at women: that's where the money is.
  28. res says:
    @biz
    Excellent comment. Agree completely.

    I also think that the current year makes people's lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc...

    I also think that the current year makes people’s lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc…

    This. Never before has so much ignorance and stupidity been displayed so shamelessly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I was never much of a fan of facebook, but created an account there for professional reasons. Since the campaign and election of Trump I no longer look at my fb feed. The fact that liberals are so unabashed about sharing their simplistic, uninformed, and radical political views there has ruined it for me. As a right-winger, you know it would be very unwise to post your views, but supporters of our dominant ideology of course feel unconstrained.

    The effect of facebook has been to make me lose respect and affection for friends and acquaintances with whom I had gotten along fine in person. You can know too much about someone.

  29. @Seneca
    Yes, I think you and Faraday's Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms "on average" or "bell curve" mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that " every member" of a group is not smart, just because "on average" they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc... )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can't reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    Most people, even smart ones, are massively innumerate, and do not even possess middle-school level arithmetic instincts or a feel for numbers. Almost all are poorly read, and those who read non-fiction books to “increase their knowledge” or “broaden their horizons” are passive, uncritical consumers of received wisdom. One of the most pernicious myths in America is that our higher education system is second to none in the world in imparting critical thinking skills. It does no such thing.

    People like Steve Sailer, who read broadly, outside of their field of expertise, and who then think about what they’ve read, critically, before coming to their own, independent, conclusions are extremely rare in our times, perhaps less than ever before. Intellectually ornery, independent, genuinely free-thinking and opinionated Americans are mostly a thing of the past.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms “on average” or “bell curve” mean or imply.

    Most people simply assume “on average” or “mean” means modal, and broadly so.

    Read More
  30. JW says:
    @jimmyriddle
    I know quite a few Googlers, mostly in the London and Zurich campuses, but a few North Americans and Aussies too.

    Very few of the top technical talent at Google is female, and that is obvious to everybody, and clearly annoys some of the women who work there.

    Not every man there is super bright, à la Damore, and women developers there are not duds, but it is a very status conscious place, and guys like Damore piss off a lot of women just by existing (and excelling seemingly without all that much effort).

    Being status conscious seems true of most Silicon Valley tech companies. There’s a hierarchy and people at the bottom don’t much like people at the top.

    I can’t blame them much. Only people at the top work on anything interesting.

    Read More
  31. @Steve Sailer
    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons. The ancient world held censuses (three are mentioned in the Bible), but I've never heard of anybody back then thinking to do some interesting analyses of the data.

    Statistics seemed to emerge mathematically in the late 18th Century in response to what to do about small errors in astronomical observations. In the 19th Century, various people started thinking statistically about things like a database of Scottish army uniform sizes.

    But it was Galton well into the second half of the 19th Century who came up with many of our basic concepts. He wasn't even a mathematical genius nor young. He was a gifted gentleman amateur who kept puttering away at this giant field of thought that had been 99% ignored for almost all of human history.

    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons.

    Statistical thinking and probability are, of course, entangled and completely inseparable. The parallel mystery is why nobody thought about probability and the associated math until the 17th century. At a philosophical level, probability theory could easily have happened two thousand years earlier, and would have been a fertile field of inquiry for various philosophically oriented civilizations in antiquity.

    Personally, I think a lot of the failure of college-educated people to understand even simple statistical concepts at a gut level is a failure of education. Freshman stat with a few hundred people in an auditorium is about the worst way to teach the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The first 20 pages of Plato's Republic walk right up to the edge of various 18th and 19th century conceptual breakthroughs like "division of labor," but then nobody did much to extend them for a long time.
    , @Steve Sailer
    It's bizarre that there was little theoretical work on probability for gambling before Pascal and Fermat in the 17th Century. The subject pops up in Galileo and Dante but not until P and F does it really stay interesting.

    I wonder if unknown geniuses worked out the math of dice and cards before them, but just kept it secret to fleece the marks?
  32. @res

    I also think that the current year makes people’s lack of rationality more in your face to those inclined to notice and bemoan because everyone is constantly stating their positions on Facebook etc…
     
    This. Never before has so much ignorance and stupidity been displayed so shamelessly.

    I was never much of a fan of facebook, but created an account there for professional reasons. Since the campaign and election of Trump I no longer look at my fb feed. The fact that liberals are so unabashed about sharing their simplistic, uninformed, and radical political views there has ruined it for me. As a right-winger, you know it would be very unwise to post your views, but supporters of our dominant ideology of course feel unconstrained.

    The effect of facebook has been to make me lose respect and affection for friends and acquaintances with whom I had gotten along fine in person. You can know too much about someone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    One interesting thing about the Damore affair is how completely silent my Facebook feed has been about it so far. This despite there being a good representation of both techies and liberals who like to repeat the current cause célèbre. Something is different this time.
  33. jim jones says:
    @Seneca
    Yes, I think you and Faraday's Bobcat are on to something.

    After years at being puzzled by the behavior and beliefs of other people (it was my blind spot), I have come to the same conclusion.

    Namely, that outside of their field of work (and even then you sometimes wonder), most people are simply not that smart. Most of them are slightly innumerate, have poor reasoning and reading skills (or are not well read), are too emotional, and are intellectually lazy.

    In particular I have had problems understanding their inability or refusal to understand what the terms "on average" or "bell curve" mean or imply. They do not mean as SJWs seem to believe that " every member" of a group is not smart, just because "on average" they are not as smart as another group (or as gifted at math, spatial reasoning, athletics, etc... )

    I think the reason why it i took me so long to realize that most people are not that smart is because it leads to a conclusion which is frightening.

    Basically, you are lead to the conclusion that the mass of people are like Zombies and easily lead by their emotions and are therefore prone to moral panics and mass hysteria.

    The frightening thing is that you can't reason with Zombies. It is even scarier than that because these Zombies often have a normal appearance. So they are like Pod People who are Zombies but behave like humans in some ways. Hence, who can you trust to be reasonable? And things you innocently said can later get you in trouble too.

    The other frightening thing is that these Zombies/Pod People may hate you and are aggressively opinionated (and almost literally want to kill you in the name of SJW equality!).

    Of course, this explains many of the murderous mass hysteria moral panic events in history such as the horrors that communism (in the name of SJW equality no less!) inflicted on the world such as Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields to name a few.

    In short when you reach this conclusion (most people simply are not that smart) it makes the world appear even more dangerous than it might have seemed to you as a child.

    Most people are dumb and ignorant but they obscure their limitations by only using cliches in their conversation.

    Read More
  34. @L Woods
    Feminism is easily the most manifestly stupid thing the left pushes (at least until "transgender" "rights" came along). It seems to me that there'd be considerably less opposition to their agenda if they'd just toss it overboard. Women are at the bottom of the victim hierarchy anyway. It's of course true that women vote more left than men, but I'm not sure how much feminism per say actually has to do with that (other than the fact that it handed them the right to do it in the first place).

    The same reason most advertising is targeted at women: that’s where the money is.

    Read More
  35. @PiltdownMan

    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons.
     
    Statistical thinking and probability are, of course, entangled and completely inseparable. The parallel mystery is why nobody thought about probability and the associated math until the 17th century. At a philosophical level, probability theory could easily have happened two thousand years earlier, and would have been a fertile field of inquiry for various philosophically oriented civilizations in antiquity.

    Personally, I think a lot of the failure of college-educated people to understand even simple statistical concepts at a gut level is a failure of education. Freshman stat with a few hundred people in an auditorium is about the worst way to teach the subject.

    The first 20 pages of Plato’s Republic walk right up to the edge of various 18th and 19th century conceptual breakthroughs like “division of labor,” but then nobody did much to extend them for a long time.

    Read More
  36. @PiltdownMan

    Statistical reasoning came along late in human culture for unexplained reasons.
     
    Statistical thinking and probability are, of course, entangled and completely inseparable. The parallel mystery is why nobody thought about probability and the associated math until the 17th century. At a philosophical level, probability theory could easily have happened two thousand years earlier, and would have been a fertile field of inquiry for various philosophically oriented civilizations in antiquity.

    Personally, I think a lot of the failure of college-educated people to understand even simple statistical concepts at a gut level is a failure of education. Freshman stat with a few hundred people in an auditorium is about the worst way to teach the subject.

    It’s bizarre that there was little theoretical work on probability for gambling before Pascal and Fermat in the 17th Century. The subject pops up in Galileo and Dante but not until P and F does it really stay interesting.

    I wonder if unknown geniuses worked out the math of dice and cards before them, but just kept it secret to fleece the marks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    I think I read somewhere that there was a kind of taboo on studying probability because that was thought to be the province of god.
  37. @Steve Sailer
    It's bizarre that there was little theoretical work on probability for gambling before Pascal and Fermat in the 17th Century. The subject pops up in Galileo and Dante but not until P and F does it really stay interesting.

    I wonder if unknown geniuses worked out the math of dice and cards before them, but just kept it secret to fleece the marks?

    I think I read somewhere that there was a kind of taboo on studying probability because that was thought to be the province of god.

    Read More
  38. Olorin says:
    @Barnard
    People have bringing up the discrepancy in race in pro football and basketball for at least thirty years in research to affirmative action. Most of the diversity crowd won't even engage the argument.

    One of the hallmarks of religion is precisely that it does not engage with facts.

    One of the hallmarks of religious thinking is that its basic beliefs must violate natural law and daily observation and require faith.

    The diversity religion makes supernatural and counter-intuitive claims all the time. It is up to us to catalogue and analyze those…and convince first ourselves then leftists that they are the real creationists so to speak.

    I have found it possible to make inroads with diversitopians by leading them to articulate, Meno-style, their view of what constitutes religious thinking. Since most are lefty and secular, they hate religion.

    Later I can draw on this when they talk about race and point out the parallel ontological forms in their thinking. For instance the Equity Religion appears to me to be Eternal Salvation/Punishment of Sinners in another package.

    I’m writing too generally about this here…but anyway, perhaps my favorite source of insights since the early Aughts is Pascal Boyer:

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articlesReligiousThought.html

    Religious thought and behavior as by-products of brain function

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articles/Boyer2003ReligionTiCS.pdf

    Religious ontologies and the bounds of sense: a cognitive catalogue of the supernatural

    http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Boyer.htm

    He has also written extensively on the “threat detection” and “precaution systems” aspects of cognition:

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articlesThreatDetection.html

    I’m using his insights on that to deal with Trump Derangement Syndrome as I encounter it.

    Read More
  39. Olorin says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Man I can't wait for demographic change

    You white boys are going to pay fir all your slavery colonialism and racism

    I already pay fir yew and balsam too.

    Read More
  40. The Onion would never dare such a scathing attack on the pieties of the ruling class.

    Read More
  41. @jimmyriddle
    I know quite a few Googlers, mostly in the London and Zurich campuses, but a few North Americans and Aussies too.

    Very few of the top technical talent at Google is female, and that is obvious to everybody, and clearly annoys some of the women who work there.

    Not every man there is super bright, à la Damore, and women developers there are not duds, but it is a very status conscious place, and guys like Damore piss off a lot of women just by existing (and excelling seemingly without all that much effort).

    guys like Damore piss off a lot of women just by existing (and excelling seemingly without all that much effort).

    This gets to the very heart of the problem. women can do math and engineering, but it takes a lot more studying, concentration, and training. It’s just not worth it compared to the other interesting endeavors in life. Then you see some nerdy guy who just instantly grasps a difficult problem and works toward a solution. All while you’re still struggling to even understand the problem. Most women realize this somewhere along the education track and veer off into areas that they can excel at with a reasonable amount of effort.

    This really shouldn’t be the big fight that everybody’s making it. why not just let everyone decide what they’d like to do and not stigmatize those who get off the engineering/math bus?

    Also, the whole physics/math status game is ridiculous. A woman selling real estate can make way more money and have lots more fun than some programmer packed away in his cubicle churning out code. Being a wife and mother to a successful businessman is full of choice bennies too. So much of this is wasted furor.

    Read More
  42. res says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    I was never much of a fan of facebook, but created an account there for professional reasons. Since the campaign and election of Trump I no longer look at my fb feed. The fact that liberals are so unabashed about sharing their simplistic, uninformed, and radical political views there has ruined it for me. As a right-winger, you know it would be very unwise to post your views, but supporters of our dominant ideology of course feel unconstrained.

    The effect of facebook has been to make me lose respect and affection for friends and acquaintances with whom I had gotten along fine in person. You can know too much about someone.

    One interesting thing about the Damore affair is how completely silent my Facebook feed has been about it so far. This despite there being a good representation of both techies and liberals who like to repeat the current cause célèbre. Something is different this time.

    Read More
  43. @eah
    Why were they considered to be aspersions? -- on video he seems like a rather milquetoast kind of guy -- what he wrote was not mean-spirited.

    ^
    Outed as xoxohth poatser.

    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