One of the most golden things to come out of the Google Manifesto (GM) thus far is to watch lefties who typically cite "science" as backing up claims about human caused climate change, often noting that 99 or so percent of climate scientists agree on the subject, now turning around and claiming that the science behind known behavioral and psychological differences between genders (and races) is suspect and fake. It reveals, to those now paying attention how the left is not interested in science as much as they are interested in any and everything that they can weaponize against everyone who is "not Left".
Aside from that we have seen a gender based version of the "rage of a privileged class" phenomenon that
I wrote about recently:
This information is critical if you want to understand the "rage of a privileged class". There is a "large" population, in terms of raw numbers, of very bright black people. However because the black population is relatively small, that number is minuscule in relation to the population as a whole:...
So here's the thing. If you are one of those black people who are on the far right side of the IQ distribution you are a rare bird (statistically speaking). However, it is likely you also interact with many other rare birds. Because of this you likely think that there are more of you than is represented in the population. Because of this, the following chart burns you up inside:
The same thing applies to the reaction to the GM, there are many bright women who do high level tech as competently as their male counterparts, but statistically they are a small group (just as the men who do this work, more on that later). Furthermore, most women who are THAT bright choose to do other things with that intellect (as seen in where women gravitate to in terms of advanced degrees and career choices) that siphons them off from CS fields which further impacts their numbers. This is all known stuff. But a certain victim/siege mentality has taken hold of modern Western women where we get nonsense
like the following (linking to Steve Sailer 'cause he's always worth reading):
For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author? …
I thought about all of this, looked at my daughter and answered simply.
“No, it’s not true.”
It's one thing to lie about some fat white man who crawls up and down chimneys (some of which simply don't exist) with a impossibly small [often] black bag for the amount of toys he allegedly has, and places these presents under a decorated tree and takes the time necessary to eat cookies and drink milk while keeping a schedule where there is about 5 hours of darkness to cover the entire globe.
It is one thing to lie to your kid about some fairy that comes to their bedroom with whatever currency is in circulation and plops one under their pillow and retrieves whatever tooth is there.
But lying to your kid about a known and verifiable scientific fact because you're too chicken shit to tell them how biology and the world actually works is diarrhea level of parenting. At some time in the near future this girl, should she be at all bright, will find out her mother is a grand level liar and may well lose a lot of respect for her. But let's address the epic level straw man argument offered here:
For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author?
Firstly there is hardly "universal calls" for swift action against Damore. The only way you can think that such an environment exists is if you live in a rather opaque bubble. However to the point here, the same argument made by Damore in regards to gender diversity at Google
can in fact be made about Non-Asian minorities in the technology field.
I've discussed this multiple times already:
That's very few people getting top level PHD's in computer science. I'm sure that they are in high demand as well. According to that paper. CS BS degrees awarded topped out in 2003 with around 22k degrees awarded. when we look at the ethnic and racial breakdown of those awarded said degrees we find that "Black or African-Americans" get 4.6% of those degrees [Pg 7]
Whites take 64.8% and Asians 15.3%
When we look at gender we find that women take 29.5% of Masters to 70.5% for men. When we look at Master's degrees by race and ethnicity we find:
Black or African-American: 2.6%
White 31.2%
Asian 12.4%
Non-resident Alien 50.4% (Why is "Non-resident Alien" recorded with ethnicity?)
When it comes to Phd level degrees, Men hold 80.2% of the degrees to women's 19.8% Black or African-American's hold 1.4% of PhD level CS degrees
Whites, 34.3%
Asians 12.3%
Nonresident Alien 49.6% (again why is this in the ethnicity section and WHO is it hiding?)
And from
another post of mine:
Look. If HARPO Studios, created by none other than Oprah Winfrey herself cannot manage to employ 60% African-Americans at her studio why the hell should anyone be mad at Google or LinkedIN? Someone ought to send the EEOC to Harpo studios and get them to explain why a black company apparently cannot find qualified black staff.
I mean how is it that Oprah Winfrey could not find a BLACK CEO to run her company?
Why all this disparity?
That little bump? That's the Black IQ distribution mapped in proportion to their population demographics. This is why Google hasn't been able to bump it's black population in it's high IQ roles from 2%. There's no more to get! Why does the Hispanic population at Google go from 2% to 5%? Because you can be white AND Hispanic, not mention you're white and boom! White Hernandez is put in the diversity column.
But let me get back to the victim mentality issue and the issue of why there is so much "outrage" going on. When women see that men are at the top of most hugely rich and successful companies they have been trained to see "men". When men see men at the same positions they don't see "men" they see successful individuals. We know that those men at the top are such a small proportion of the population of men that we KNOW that gender is NOT the determining factor and barely a factor at all in their success. After all if simply being MALE got you even half the success of the men at the top then half the male population would be uber rich. So we do not use our dicks as crutches.
We KNOW that those people at the top of the heap, be in business, sports and to an extent, politics, got there by doing things that the average person won't or can't do. Let me give an example:
I play Blackjack. Like most people, when I started out I won big (as in 10x my buy in) my first time out and thought I was The Shit. I went back with more money and lost it.
Most people would have packed it in and moved back to slot machines or never touched a casino again. Casinos are NOT for the risk averse. So the fact that I did not stop playing put me in a category that most people would never get into. My gender has a statistical impact on the decision as men/males are less risk averse than women. At the Blackjack table this is also borne out as most Blackjack players are male (go look).
The next thing is that I decided that I would research the game and found out about Basic Strategy(BS). Knowing basic strategy reduces the house edge. Unlike many people who are willing to put money on the Blackjack table, I committed to learning BS and playing it no matter what. I have often advised people to learn it. Most of the people I have made the suggestion to decided against it. "Too hard", "too much".
Then I spent hours (and spend hours) practicing to know what to do as soon as the cards hit the table. I practice against whatever conditions I expect to see at the casinos I frequent because different rules require different but similar strategies. How many people are willing to spend 4 hours playing a day to just train themselves? Not many.
So again, my decision to learn BS on top of being willing to risk larger amounts of money put me in a class of people that most will never reach. And believe me, learning BS is NOT HARD. It is actually harder to control your emotions at a table than it is to learn the right plays. Which brings us to the issue of emotionalism. Again, my sex brings a statistical advantage here. Males are less emotion prone than women. When "gambling" one MUST be emotionally stable as to not chase losses or have a heart attack. Seriously. I've seen people laid out on the floor.
So to recap, I'm relatively successful playing BJ because I put in the required effort and made decisions that the vast majority of people will never make. Success at the high levels of tech are the same. Very few people have the inborn talent needed (IQ, impulse control, etc) and willing to take the time necessary to hone their skills which often requires social isolation, which is something we know women are less likely to do because generally they are more social. We KNOW this.
So Susan Wojcicki is a liar and she should be removed from her position by the board as you shouldn't have liars heading your company. But she's not the only liar. We are seeing that a whole breed of power hungry liars are ensconced in businesses and Academic institutions that have serious impacts on society. We see that they keep blacklists, we see that they are willing to use their power to censor. We see that they are willing to promote and act out violence against people who disagree with them. Everything is laid bare and they are willing to lie to their children as well as yours in order to maintain their power.
Susan Wojcicki admits she is a liar. We must commit to telling the truth and stand by the facts.
