The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes."
The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures.
Thus, the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths.
This is one of the gender issues going crazy.
What are your views on the above?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes."
The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures.
Thus, the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths.
This is one of the gender issues going crazy.
What are your views on the above?
About this statement:
The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures.
The only problem is that simply it's not true. Mr. Demore has made pretty clear what are his sources and they don't look like "well-developed scientific literature" and much less they would state "established scientific truths":
Evolutionary Psychology
Systems Biology
Mathematical Biology
Welcome to the Department of Systems Biology
Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be molecules, cells, organisms or entire species. Living systems are dynamic and complex, and their behavior may be hard to predict from the properties of individual parts. To study them, we use quantitative measurements of the behavior of groups of interacting components, systematic measurement technologies such as genomics, bioinformatics and proteomics, and mathematical and computational models to describe and predict dynamical behavior. Systems problems are emerging as central to all areas of biology and medicine.
Mathematical and theoretical biology is an interdisciplinary scientific research field with a range of applications. The field is sometimes called mathematical biology or biomathematics to stress the mathematical side, or theoretical biology to stress the biological side. Theoretical biology focuses more on the development of theoretical principles for biology while mathematical biology focuses on the use of mathematical tools to study biological systems, even though the two terms are sometimes interchanged. Mathematical biology aims at the mathematical representation, treatment and modeling of biological processes, using techniques and tools of applied mathematics. It has both theoretical and practical applications in biological, biomedical and biotechnology research. Describing systems in a quantitative manner means their behavior can be better simulated, and hence properties can be predicted that might not be evident to the experimenter. This requires precise mathematical models.
A simple look at what these fields stand for in their approach to human behavior reveals their empiricist reductionism, more or less the same than another field which pretends to be scientific: Economics. All of these employ a sort of data fetishism in the form of statistics and mathematical models of supposedly closed deterministic systems. In the case of Economics and Mathematical Biology they both resort to Malthusianism and Population Dynamics.
It recalls the mechanistic materialism of two centuries ago, which combined with the philosophical doctrines of naturalism, the theory of evolution and a computational theory of mind, reduces human society to a simple interaction of lifeless forces. A key notion of this synthesis is the concept of modularity in Evolutionary Psychology, which posits the existence of specific-purpose neurological mechanisms linked to specific behaviors, said to be the result of the evolutionary processes that allowed the primitive hunter-gatherers to be best fit for survival. But nothing could be more unscientific.
Considering that Mr. Demore wanted to engage in the scientific study of society, he should have focused on sociological research.
The point here is those [in Google] who victimized James Damore are being very emotional when Damore was merely trying to engage in a discussion [with supporting evidence] of the issue.
Did google provide counter arguments to show that Damore's memo was stupid and baseless?
This is a case of Unfair Dismissal because as matter equity Damore should have been given sufficient warnings [the usual 3] and counselling before he is sacked for repeated offences.
Count Lucanor wrote:
The only problem is that simply it's not true. Mr. Damore has made pretty clear what are his sources and they don't look like "well-developed scientific literature" and much less they would state "established scientific truths":
Evolutionary Psychology
Systems Biology
Mathematical Biology
Welcome to the Department of Systems Biology
Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be molecules, cells, organisms or entire species.
Mathematical and theoretical biology is an interdisciplinary scientific research field with a range of applications.
A simple look at what these fields stand for in their approach to human behavior reveals their empiricist reductionism, more or less the same than another field which pretends to be scientific: Economics. All of these employ a sort of data fetishism in the form of statistics and mathematical models of supposedly closed deterministic systems. In the case of Economics and Mathematical Biology they both resort to Malthusianism and Population Dynamics.
It recalls the mechanistic materialism of two centuries ago, which combined with the philosophical doctrines of naturalism, the theory of evolution and a computational theory of mind, reduces human society to a simple interaction of lifeless forces. A key notion of this synthesis is the concept of modularity in Evolutionary Psychology, which posits the existence of specific-purpose neurological mechanisms linked to specific behaviors, said to be the result of the evolutionary processes that allowed the primitive hunter-gatherers to be best fit for survival. But nothing could be more unscientific.
Considering that Mr. Demore wanted to engage in the scientific study of society, he should have focused on sociological research.
From the video, Damore did not claim he had specifically used studies from Systems Biology, Mathematical & theoretical biology.
Damore stated he picked up his supporting evidences from the internet and the google intranet on various topics.
Wonder have you listened to the whole video.
In that video Dr. Peter Jordanson went through his 'memo' and mentioned the related "well-developed scientific literature" Jordanson is aware of.
In addition Jordanson supplied his own list of research and studies to support his points;
Peter Jordanson wrote:
Here are a series of references buttressing the claims of James' memo:
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it's been tested, and it's wrong).
To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Well I spent the time to actually read Mr. Damore's ten page memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and I have to say even as somewhat of a liberal progressive, I do find anything that overtly offensive.
It was articulate, thoughtful and well written. I do have a problem when Political Correctness causes us to deny biological facts such as differences between the sexes in terms of not just their physical features but their psychological features as well. I also have a problem with the notion of verbal micro-agressions (particularly on college campus and in academic settings). I also have a problem with the notion that unequal representation of the sexes or the races (for that matter) is de facto is evidence of bias and discrimination. It may well be women voluntarily choose more social professions and choose a more balanced lifestyle over a competitive stress filled one (women are after all in many ways smarter (emotional IQ) than men. I suppose in itself is a violation of PC.
-- Updated August 14th, 2017, 12:07 am to add the following --
Prothero wrote:Well I spent the time to actually read Mr. Damore's ten page memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and I have to say even as somewhat of a liberal progressive, I do not find anything that overtly offensive.
It was articulate, thoughtful and well written. I do have a problem when Political Correctness causes us to deny biological facts such as differences between the sexes in terms of not just their physical features but their psychological features as well. I also have a problem with the notion of verbal micro-agressions (particularly on college campus and in academic settings). I also have a problem with the notion that unequal representation of the sexes or the races (for that matter) is de facto is evidence of bias and discrimination. It may well be women voluntarily choose more social professions and choose a more balanced lifestyle over a competitive stress filled one (women are after all in many ways smarter (emotional IQ) than men. I suppose that in itself is a violation of PC.
Spectrum wrote:
From the video, Damore did not claim he had specifically used studies from Systems Biology, Mathematical & theoretical biology.
Damore stated he picked up his supporting evidences from the internet and the google intranet on various topics.
Wonder have you listened to the whole video.
I may be not so proficient in the English language, but I'm pretty confident that as early as minute 2:09 until 2:30 on the video, when answering the question about his educational background, Damore talks about Systems Biology and Mathematical Biology.
If you believe that what he considers his educational background 1) has nothing to do with his heartfelt views on the subject, 2) didn't come to surface in his memo and 3) didn't influence the specific sources he picked as reference, you're seeing the trees, but not the forest.