patrick.net

rando says

Obesity is another example.

Obesity is caused by eating habits, which are choices. In order for your comparison to be valid, you have to be able to choose to like cock. Not just choose to suck cock, but choose to like it.

Ricky Gervais said it best.

www.youtube.com/embed/t1JhjugqB0U

Women should be kept barefoot & pregnant.
I don't care if you have morning sickness,get in the kitchen & fix my breakfast,NOW!
When you're finished washing dishes,CLEAN UP THIS PIGSTY!

Bitches need to grow some ovaries or STFU.

Patrick, statistically your measure of men and women's preference and capability to do engineering work is likely to be closer to the truth.

Although there are truth in science/engineering, on physical matters, human computing and psychology is another thing.

Which religion is more true? Which God is more real?

Democracy is "better" and yet North Korea soldiers believe in honor serving King Jung Un.

To compete for resources, business,jobs, and ultimately wars, human propaganda anything to gain competitive edge.
Truth does NOT matter.
Who gets the food and sex matters.

Google fired James NOT because he is wrong, but because that's bad for google's business.

Women go against James, NOT because he is wrong, but because his "truth" hurt their job opportunity.

People go to wars in order to secure food and sex. It does NOT matter wheather the propaganda for war is true or NOT.

In the end, the fittest survives.

If google goes down because they keep firing people like James, the. google failed the natural selection.

If James went broke, and failed to secure food and sex for himself, James failed the natural selection.

There is truth, but it does NOT matter.

Dan8267 says

Studies have shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers.

Yes, and here is one possible explanation:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that genes get turned on and off due to environmental factors. Alligators become male or female not due to genetic code, but rather due to temperature. Chickens literally become transgendered from temperature as well.

There are some biological realities you're missing here. The phenomenon you're describing is epigenetics, the selective expression of genes triggered by environmental factors. This is a very important field and scientists have much work yet to do to understand it fully.
However, only genes contained in the genetic code may actually be expressed. Women LACK the male "Y" chromosome, and so can never express the genes it contains no matter the environment. Certain other animals like lizards and frogs have all relevant DNA and can swap genders easily. That doesn't mean humans can do the same.

That said, I'm thinking homosexuality is part learned behavior (homo molestation as a child can play a huge role) and part epigenetics. DNA expression of homosexual traits can begin even in the womb if mom's hormones are off. This can even be triggered by lack of essential nutrients, as happens often in second and third pregnancies. However, given the method of epigenetic expression has to do with nutrition and environment, could it be possible for the biological component of homosexuality to be switched off? Maybe all you need to go straight are enough red meat and broccoli and some careful study of Hustler magazine.

Coding is conceptually simple, even though it is abstract.
Good analytical skills help but many coding tasks require only basic reasoning.
I believe many women can code and some are very good at it. I know some.

On the other hand, the computer won't treat you like a princess.

This guy was fired for "promoting gender stereotypes" but the biggest promoter of gender stereotypes I know are Disney movies. And I don't hear feminists complaining about them.

BayArea says

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire. Keep it professional and focus on work.

I agree with the advice, but I do believe one is only being paid for labor, not conscience. The employer is only entitled to control your work while at work. Free Speech Everywhere.

The idea that an employer can regulate your opinions at work is a holdover from Feudalism that needs to be abolished. Free Labor isn't Serfs.

One can only be fired if the non-work conversation is causing interference with work, and it by law should be subject to escalation: That is the employer has to show it interrupted work (not just what they didn't like) and can't fire on the first offense. This would greatly retard SJWs (and others, but SJWs represent the dominant force abusing speech the most)

Google proved he was right about "echo chamber" and "authoritarianism" by firing him.

He was right that "shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety"

TwoScoopsMcGee says

BayArea says

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire. Keep it professional and focus on work.

I agree with the advice, but I do believe one is only being paid for labor, not conscience. The employer is only entitled to control your work while at work. Free Speech Everywhere.

The idea that an employer can regulate your opinions at work is a holdover from Feudalism that needs to be abolished. Free Labor isn't Serfs.

One can only be fired if the non-work conversation is causing interference with work, and it by law should be subject to escalation: That is the employer has to show it interrupted work (not just what they didn't like) and can't fire on the first offense. This would greatly retard SJWs (and others, but SJWs represent the dominant force abusing speech the most)

Yet for some strange reason, you have no problem with Employers mandating drug testing. Odd

rando says

Time to short Google stock yet?

At this point I would not bet against GOOG, which is primarily an advertising company and has a huge number of available engineers. For better or worse, they can replace James much more easily than he can replace them. I recommend reading Dan's Post on compartmentalization vs interconnectedness. GOOG's brand and business depend heavily on connectedness, and (probably for that reason) GOOG's process emphasizes collaboration.

rando says

The idea that gay behavior is biological while women's work preference is not biological is not even self-consistent.

Again, you conflate probability and certainty, which are discrete concepts. A group of people being more likely, on average, to do XYZ does not tell you whether a specific individual representative of the group will do XYZ, much less why. The most probable roll for two 6-sided dice is 7, but 7 is definitely not the only possible roll. Dan addressed this too.

Daniel Kahneman and Alan Greenspan have both written that people can learn intuitively to understand mathematical probabilities, and lessons learned that way are available faster and more reliably than lessons learned only theoretically based on rules at the level of the cortex. I am guessing maybe Dan played more card games or dice games than you, which might explain why he seems to have a deeper and more fluent understanding of probabilities and how they affect people.

rando says

one possible explanation:

Possible, but not probable. Girls are more likely to be molested than boys, but getting molested doesn't turn a boy into a girl. Gay boys are more likely to be molested than straight boys, but getting molested isn't likely to turn a straight boy into a gay boy. More likely, the fight-or-flight mechanism doesn't engage the same way; there can be more ambivalence or even interest. Either way, your link says most gay men weren't molested. In contrast, many women have been molested or assaulted sexually, but they don't hold pride parades to celebrate that fact. You are quite mistaken in equating pride and shame; the founders of the St. Patrick's Day parades were not ashamed of their Irish heritage, but they were determined to secure equality or at least decent opportunities in the New World.

rando says

an ancient and well-known vice

Excess is a vice. Eating, drinking, gambling, and sex are not vices.

I won't suggest going to the Boise airport or Reseda truck stops to try your luck with Larry Craig or Fortwhine, but I do suggest you might enjoy more card games or dice games, which can improve your fluency with probability.

You mentioned ancient Greece, where Sparta proved that socialization can influence the sexual behavior and interests of probably most males. Sparta thrived longer than the USA has even existed, but fell eventually to Athens, which had broader collaboration and connectedness. Both had plenty of what would now be called homosexuality, though Sparta had a more compartmentalized version.

GOOG compartmentalizes certain technology projects, but its revenue depends on advertising, where it tries to maintain an emphasis on collaboration and connectedness. I would guess James might have been well suited to one of the tech compartments, but his memo strayed outside his position, using words like "need" to tell more senior policy people what they "need" to do for the core business. If James had understood collaboration and connectedness better, he might have avoided words like "need" and instead stuck to probabilities and legal issues: he may indeed be right that statistical disparities in employment result primarily from stastically different distributions of innate abilities and opportunities; he may also be right that intentionally discriminatory remedial programs might cause liabiity problems, but it isn't his role to order senior management to do what he believes they "need" to do. The CEO came back early from vacation to take charge ot the situation and to protect the core advertising revenue and brand, which require collaboration and connectedness.

ThreeBays says

Labeling a whole group with generalizations like "more interested in people than things" is antithetical to recognizing individual achievement.

Reading James' memo as a whole, I thought he emphasized probabilities without denying individual variation and achievement. Maybe I misread him, or maybe he wasn't clear enough. Certainly in some of Patrick's comments I see a tendency to deny the existence of individual variation, so maybe James fell into the same mistake, or maybe some parts of his memo reminded people of someone else (e.g. Patrick) and so they reacted to that association rather than to what James wrote.

Either way, James wrote as an engineer but used highly charged words to assert what senior management "needs" to do. The CEO returned early from vacation to show who was in charge, i.e. who decides what the company "needs" to do.

ThreeBays says

Labeling a whole group with generalizations like "more interested in people than things" is antithetical to recognizing individual achievement.

Favoring whole groups for recruiting based on gender or race is also antithetical to recognizing individual achievement.

ThreeBays says

Nice straw man, but this isn't what anyone is debating.

Wrong. The article was explicitly about the lack of interest that women show in engineering, relative to men, and how female disinterest in engineering leads to systemic discrimination against men. The difference is falsely assumed to arise from sexism when a more plausible explanation is simply that women do not like engineering as much as men, on average.

James himself makes the excellent point that the clear and significant difference in the bell curves is invariably and disingenuously used as a straw man by SJWs:

Other things that were divisive: Heliocentrism, Evolution, and Anasthetics.

I'm laughing at the Corporate Speak:

In her initial response to the memo, Brown, who joined from Intel Corp. in June, suggested that Google was open to all hosting “difficult political views,” including those in the memo. However, she left open the possibility that Google could penalize the engineer for violating company policies. “But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws,” she wrote.

"We're open to anything, unless that anything conflicts with the subjects mentioned in our Corporate Materials. Then STFU and you're fired."

PS Google Veep Brown worked on the Clinton Campaign

Google is raking in shitload of money from advertising via their search engine. The rest is just something they spend money on. Be it Brin's Boeing, "googleglass", "self-driving cars" or "diversity" - it's their dough to blow. Who's to say they can't buy another jet, "VP of diversity" or "equal number of girl engineers" just because? If shareholders are OK with it this all that matters.

ThreeBays says

His discourse turned unproductive due to being disrespectful to whole groups of people.

At my workplace (large university) we got directive coming from the very top to hire only a woman or a minority for the next open position. Is that discrimination or not, and how does that compare with potential minor biases in evaluation?

Live on your knees if that's your style Uncle Tom

BayArea says

rando says

BayArea says

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire.

It's Google that brought politics into the workplace. This guy was objecting to it.

Patrick, you are saying that Google brought politics into it with their diversity initiates?

Not sure I can object there. But everyone knows there's nearly 100% chance of employment termination by pushing back on a diversity initiative.

rando says

Dan8267 says

Studies have shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers.

Yes, and here is one possible explanation:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview

I don't see how that explains anything. Even if child sexual abuse caused homosexuality, why would men with older brothers be more likely to be homosexual? If a parent is molesting a child, would he or she not start with the first? Are you saying that older brothers molesting younger brothers cause homosexuality? That would require evidence. I'm not aware of any study that shows this.

In any case, you'd still have to explain why countless non-molested boys become homosexual. The in vitro testosterone hypothesis does explain this.

But even if your hypothesis is correct, then homosexuality is still not a choice as no one chooses to be sexual abused.

Quigley says

This is a very important field and scientists have much work yet to do to understand it fully.

Neither is genetics. Your point?

Quigley says

However, only genes contained in the genetic code may actually be expressed.

All genes, by definition, make up genetic code. The epigenome is not composed of genes. The term literally means "above the genome".

Quigley says

Women LACK the male "Y" chromosome

Chromosomes aren't expressed. Genes are. You mean women lack the SR-Y gene. However, that's not relevant. The scientific studies indicate that male homosexuals may be the result of high levels of in vitro testosterone, not lesbians. Also, women do have testosterone, just not as much as men.

Also the Y chromosome isn't male any more than the X chromosome. Nor is the SR-Y gene male. The SR-Y gene causes testosterone to be released in the developing embryo causing it to form male body parts and a male brain. The difference might be subtle, but it is critical. No gene is male or female. Nor is it the case that male body parts are determined solely by the presence of particular genes. Testosterone turns on and off various genes and even turns on and off specific genes at specific times and places in the body. So the SR-Y gene is like a master switch.

Also, technically you could have an XY woman if the SR-Y gene was sufficiently damaged so as to not encode. This would indeed make a person's biological sex female while her CIS sex was male. She would have a functioning womb. One might wonder what would happen to a fertilized YY egg in that situation. I suspect it would not survive because there's a lot of genes only on the X chromosome. I don't know of any case of there being such a XY woman, but it is theoretically possible. But evidently somethingsimilar happens called XY gonadal dysgenesis.

Quigley says

I'm thinking homosexuality is part learned behavior (homo molestation as a child can play a huge role)

Hell, heterosexuality is part learned behavior. That does not say anything.

Heraclitusstudent says

Coding is conceptually simple, even though it is abstract.

Software development is way more than coding, and even writing code is way more than the mechanics of for-loops.

curious2 says

GOOG's brand and business depend heavily on connectedness, and (probably for that reason) GOOG's process emphasizes collaboration.

I think they are just being politically correct for image. The Google CEO may have fired this guy, but the press got him fired by waging a witch hunt.

curious2 says

I am guessing maybe Dan played more card games or dice games than you

No, I'm just a math geek. I like math, logic, and systematic reasoning. The subject matter is largely irrelevant. I'm not into games of chance, though.

Dan8267 says

Chromosomes aren't expressed. Genes are. You mean women lack the SR-Y gene. However, that's not relevant. The scientific studies indicate that male homosexuals may be the result of high levels of in vitro testosterone, not lesbians. Also, women do have testosterone, just not as much as men.

This is where Dan's lack of science training really shows. A Chromosome is a package of DNA which splits as a whole from the rest of the DNA during cellular mitosis (division and replication). The "Y" chromosome contains approximately 59 million base pairs of DNA, which are NOT found on the X chromosome. Once again, only males have this very special chromosome, females do not, and thus they are missing the 59 million bits of genetic code that makes a man a man.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

A female can't just write herself 59 million bits of new code to become a man!

drBu says

At my workplace (large university) we got directive coming from the very top to hire only a woman or a minority for the next open position. Is that discrimination or not, and how does that compare with potential minor biases in evaluation?

This is absolutely identical to the order "Do not hire a white male for the next open position."

Which is absolute discrimination of the most blatant kind.

Such universities must lose all federal funding according the principle of equality under the law.

Can you document the directive? The important thing is clear evidence. Email me personally: p@patrick.net
I would greatly enjoy doing what I can to get a lawsuit started against such a racist and sexist university.

https://www.hg.org/employment-discrimination-law.html

Quigley says

Dan8267 says

Chromosomes aren't expressed. Genes are. You mean women lack the SR-Y gene. However, that's not relevant. The scientific studies indicate that male homosexuals may be the result of high levels of in vitro testosterone, not lesbians. Also, women do have testosterone, just not as much as men.

This is where Dan's lack of science training really shows. A Chromosome is a package of DNA which splits as a whole from the rest of the DNA during cellular mitosis (division and replication). The "Y" chromosome contains approximately 59 million base pairs of DNA, which are NOT found on the X chromosome.

We all know you hate me, but making up shit isn't the way to deal with your butthurt.

My statements are true. Chromosomes are NOT expressed. GENES are expressed. Saying otherwise just indicates your lack of scientific literacy. One does not have to have a PhD in genetics to understand the basics of genetics. You should be scientifically literate. It's not a high bar.

You are simply wrong in your statements about genetics and wrong in your statements about me. Trying to poison the well won't cover your incompetence. You would have looked better simply admitting your mistake and thanking me for clarifying the subject matter. My corrections of your statements were not attacks on you, but you end up looking bad by reacting to them as such.

Also, you are completely misleading people about the Y chromosome. Although it has some genes other than SR-Y that are still active, it has damn few active genes compared to other chromosomes including the X chromosome. The number of base pairs doesn't mean shit. It's the number of active genes.

From Science Magazine

The presence or absence of the Y chromosome is what determines sex—the Y chromosome contains several genes key to testes formation. But while the X chromosome has remained large throughout evolution, with about 2000 genes, the Y chromosome lost most of its genetic material early in its evolution; it now retains less than 100 of those original genes.

Why do you have to make everything into a pissing contest? Can't you just be happy discussing the facts of the subject matter and not personalizing everything?

Quigley says

A female can't just write herself 59 million bits of new code to become a man!

She doesn't have to. Merely artificially increasing the testosterone in a female embryo early enough will cause the development of a male baby.

Also, the SR-Y gene is the ONLY gene in the Y chromosome causing maleness even though there are other genes in that chromosome and they are passed on asexually from father to son. This does not mean they make you male. Your mitochondria DNA is passed on asexually from your mother. That doesn't make you female.

ThreeBays says

Things like in a meeting female engineers of equal level getting ignored. Or when evaluating performance of an "aggressive" leader, the inclination to call the male a "strong leader that gets things done" and the female "kind of a bitch". This is sexist bias that companies are trying to train against in order to help women that do want to be in tech have a fair and healthy career.

First: it’s absurd to think that shaming people into silence eliminates sexist bias. It avoids any discussion, but an hiring manager who doesn’t believe in women will find ways to justify his decision. Censure doesn’t work. It’s known not to work. This is why we have freedom of speech in the first place.

Second, if women aren’t in equal number as men, it’s absurd to think that this is because of being ignored in a meeting, even assuming they have a slightly better chance of being ignored. These are second order issues. The main reason why there are few women in tech, is because of women themselves. American women have a cultural bias against spending their lives in front of a computer. This is less the case for example with Chinese women.
Women need to man up, stop blaming others, and look in a mirror.

Dan8267 says

My statements are true. Chromosomes are NOT expressed. GENES are expressed. Saying otherwise just indicates your lack of scientific literacy.

I never said they were. I was clearly referring to the female lack of an entire chromosome worth of DNA (genes) necessary for maleness. The fact that you got confused shows that you don't understand the subject matter. I shouldnt have to spell out every detail.

Your linked paraphrase from Science Magazine reinforces my point that the Y chromosome is what makes one male. Not testosterone in the womb or really really wishing for it.

We all know you hate me, but making up shit isn't the way to deal with your butthurt.

----------------

Why do you think that so many people "hate" you?

You've accused me of it too, which is silly as hell.

Referring to yourself as 'we' is as tribal as it gets.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you

rando says

Can you document the directive?

This was not documented, as administration in most cases is not THAT stupid.

For a case of extremely stupid AND racist please see https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/16/job-ad-u-louisville-raises-questions-about-considering-race-faculty-hires.

The post (inactive but still cached here) on HigherEdJobs mostly resembled a typical ad, encouraging applicants “with a Ph.D. in physics or a related area, a strong research record and a passion for teaching” to apply. It also included a standard equal employment opportunity statement saying the University of Louisville is “an affirmative action, equal opportunity, Americans with disabilities employer, committed to community engagement and diversity, and in that spirit, seeks applications from a broad variety of candidates.”

But just under that statement, the ad continued, “The Department of Physics and Astronomy announces a tenure-track assistant professor position that will be filled by an African-American, Hispanic American or a Native American Indian [sic].”

And this did not cause mass outrage, riots, lawsuits, etc which would be expected if the ad would say "white males only".

Quigley says

I never said they were. I was clearly referring to the female lack of an entire chromosome worth of DNA (genes) necessary for maleness. The fact that you got confused shows that you don't understand the subject matter. I shouldnt have to spell out every detail.

You implied that by falsely accusing me of speaking in ignorance and citing specific statements I made that were true.

You should have to be clear what you meant, and in this case you were. You were simply trying to poison the well because you are petty. It's getting tiresome. It's repeated shit like this that got your ass banned from my threads. Try to keep the conversation on topic.

drBu says

ThreeBays says

His discourse turned unproductive due to being disrespectful to whole groups of people.

At my workplace (large university) we got directive coming from the very top to hire only a woman or a minority for the next open position. Is that discrimination or not, and how does that compare with potential minor biases in evaluation?

I'm not sure. Why don't you send an email out to the company asking? Oh that's right, you would be fired on the spot.

errc says

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you

Yes. This. Hell, sometimes I even agree with Dan. I even liked one of his posts the other day. I do think he's tragically wrong-headed on a myriad of different subjects, but this makes me either pity him or at the worst, become slightly annoyed. I don't hate. Hating someone is like drinking poison in the hope that your enemy dies from it. Much more damaging to the hater than the hated. I'm not a dummy so I decline to hate.

Dan8267 says

Try to keep the conversation on topic

That's rich, considering your entire last six posts were entirely off topic. The topic was the google manifesto, right?!
Whatever, dude.

Dan you are going crazy man.

Quigley did point out there are millions of chromosomes that don't exist, that's not trivial matter. Why you want to argue there and posture, beats me for sure.

Quigley says

errc says

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you

Yes. This. Hell, sometimes I even agree with Dan. I even liked one of his posts the other day. I do think he's tragically wrong-headed on a myriad of different subjects, but this makes me either pity him or at the worst, become slightly annoyed. I don't hate. Hating someone is like drinking poison in the hope that your enemy dies from it. Much more damaging to the hater than the hated. I'm not a dummy so I decline to hate.

Good post. Hate is a strong and toxic emotion, and I reserve it for only the most toxic, harmful people.

Even then, it feels shitty and I'm quick to let it go and move on.

Ain't got no time to waste emoting so inefficiently

Google makes money on advertisers. Advertisers want the diversity pablum because they think it's the norm and many think it should remain the norm, and buy into Sexual Dimorphism Denialism and/or Hormone Denialism (which is what we should call it). Because it was required of them to take Training in Social Justice for any degree they got at most universities. So there it goes.

Just like Advertisers want YouTube vids on makeup application and not on "Moderate" Jihadis in Syria.

One of the best ways to mess with this is to rename popular subjects with "keywords". We could maybe call Diversity "Electronics".

TwoScoopsMcGee says

One of the best ways to mess with this is to rename popular subjects with "keywords". We could maybe call Diversity "Electronics".

Yes, such coding is already being used to make it difficult to censor speech about race: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821215/Googles-Skypes-Yahoos-Racist-trolls-slang-make-vile-slurs-online-without-caught-automatic-filters.html

We need a few more terms for sure, preferably the brand names of companies that censor politically incorrect speech.

Maybe women = Pinterest, and men = Facebook?

Heraclitusstudent says

Women need to man up

Excellent way to put it!

errc says

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you

1. One does not disagree with facts, only opinions.
2. That's not why I said he was butthurt.
3. Coming from you that means nothing.

FortWayne says

Quigley did point out there are millions of chromosomes that don't exist, that's not trivial matter.

Actually, no he didn't, and that's even more wrong than what he said. There aren't millions of chromosomes. You have 46 chromosomes.

Dan8267 says

errc says

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they hate you

1. One does not disagree with facts, only opinions.

2. That's not why I said he was butthurt.

3. Coming from you that means nothing.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

You're still butt hurt over me pointing out that your jokes suck!! Haha. Get over yourself, honey!

You are what you hate, but don't worry, that's one tribe you are a part of. Many others just like you!

You rail on and on about conservatives and tribalism like it's sooo bad, yet you try really hard to participate! However, your words reek of someone that was never invited into many groups. Sad to be so lonely, honey

@patrick there you go, I edited it to your liking.

It's funny that in one thread you literally wished death upon me, and in another, you're protecting the thin skin of this Special Snowflake, from hearing the truth

Bizarro world

errc says

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

In your Bizarro world, it probably is.

errc says

You're still butt hurt over me pointing out that your jokes suck!!

Sorry honey, but I never gave a damn about your opinion.

errc says

Get over yourself, honey!

Don't be jealous of my confidence simply because you are an insecure beta male cuck.

errc says

You rail on and on about conservatives and tribalism like it's sooo bad, yet you try really hard to participate! However, your words reek of someone that was never invited into many groups. Sad to be so lonely, honey

You are projecting.

However, your post does show that you really care and think a lot about me. I can't say I return the favor.