One coder with no unique personal success outside being hireable by Google painting the majority of the species as lesser, with cherry picked stats that ignore human history and social trends?
Edit: I don’t care about what numbers he put in his memo. It’s the idea of peddling such a thing in the first place by someone who has no authority
Saying math says we should behave a certain way is enabling authoritarian rule, IMO
Demore forgets that he’s one of billions. He can think what he wants using his numbers, but it’s not iron clad and means nothing given that the data is generated in a highly curated social structure
It’s less “his math is off” and more “why do I care who this Demore fellow is? Because he has math? Meh lots of people do. It’s not very interesting math and theory.”
That’s not likely to connect with this crowd.
Pretty self-aggrandizing and full of shit, IMO. Not something a “place of business” as Google has painted itself in these situations, should support
He did that? Where?
I’m not linking it because it’s not like this is an esoteric notion that requires extreme vetting
It’s one a-hole who in the big picture isn’t important to anyone but himself. Something I think this forum and society as a whole have lost sight of
I have my own take on it. Add some variables he excluded and his whole thesis goes to shit. But it still says nothing but math is like English; it can be made to produce a result that tells whatever story we want
Some folks seem to think every formula peddles some inherent truth of reality, which is nonsense
By that reasoning, there seems to be evidence that women are contextually better than men at medicine and healthcare.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3044934/why-are-these-3-stem-fie...
I’m indifferent to concerns about rigor in my comments. Also I’m on a phone and half interested, passing the time on a bus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siRG42yMpyc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grNAjsb4yX8
Look up the citations, then decide for yourself who is pushing an ideological agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
Here is a reasonable and cogent critique of the Damore memo. Liana K makes a very good argument that James Damore is wrong. However, note how many general falsehoods about the memo she calls out.
Also, what group claims individualism as their value? Liberals or conservatives? I suspect many people would say they are pro individual freedom and rights when framed as individualism vs collectivism. Also, do conservatives champion individualism or community?
Look at the comments in here on any article about something that's vaguely political or a social issue in a flyover state, rural are or "less developed" country. There's this weird implication of slight superiority.
A lot of them often read with a sort of pro colonialism white mans's burden sort of tone. It's like everyone else isn't capable of figuring out their own problems and needs the smart people to rule them. There's also a sort of Christian missionary kind of undertone where everyone who doesn't believe like we do faces eternal damnation so it's our responsibility to get them to shun their existing beliefs and convert. It's not a malevolent intolerance, it's a saving you for your own good kind of intolerance.
I can't quite put my finger on it (so I'm drawing parallels instead) but I don't like it.
Okay, so you don't have to have a bit-accurate copy.
but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.
The above is pretty much a definition of intolerance.
Science relies on bad experiments. But of course folks like Thiel and Demore act like they got it right and can just keep on doing, cause of a sense of privilege.
Thiel isn’t doing the work himself. That’s impossible. But rules should be avoided. Relies on society to collectively provide, but says society isn’t allowed to expect anything back.
IMO, those sorts seem to be especially easy to manipulate emotionallly. Patted on the back all their lives, but if you should try to stop them they get salty. Forgetting that they’re still one of many.
Look at all the “anarchist” gamers and hacker types with no identity otherwise. Lots of dismissive rhetoric towards women and minorities, based solely on emotional opinion
They grew up with that “on in the background” and just kept tinkering and building on their things, otherwise, while the world (mom) made sure they had food and clean laundry.
So the rest of the world should be like mom to these emotional babies.
They may not go to church, and may now be anti-God, but what patterns were embedded in their youth that are not recallable verbatim, but see the world through same as usual expectations.
There is so much we don’t know still about the human brain and consciousness.
It's people who try to gain acceptance of violence in US politics who should be condemned. It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players or his near constant denigration of the free press?
What about the people that helped elect this obviously unfit leader? There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
The whole point of free speech is to be able to express. The current president has always erred on the side of expressing too much, and I'd say that we'd be better off without most of his tweets, or him in office. However, none of that is opposing free speech.
or his near constant denigration of the free press?
The mainstream news media in its death throes is objectively bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qmiPWgCYb4
https://www.theknifemedia.com/
There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
That sounds pretty authoritarian. The whole point of freedom is that we are able to be right or wrong. It's our choice. That's "the consent of the governed." Do I wish the election had gone differently? Yes. But simpleminded vilifying of almost 1/2 of the country isn't a constructive approach.
So I wouldn't want to promote that thinking lest I end up on the wrong end of it due to not being stronger than the other party. That's basically the political law of the jungle. That's not exactly what civilization should strive for, is it?
If I own an apartment building, I have every right to kick out all the tentants and sell the building. The law shouldn’t stop me from doing that. But I can’t complain if people try to stop me, bring bad publicity against me, etc. They’re entitled to do that in a way they wouldn’t be if I simply expressed pro-landlord views.
Yes. People will discover that you have nuanced views, then start to talk to basically warn you ominously, or send you home in a cab. People with power will leave you hanging, wondering if your life will be destroyed.
There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.
The problem isn't the obnoxious people. Obnoxious people thrive on their conflicts with each other. The problem is what happens to reasonable people. The problem is the intolerance of asking questions and of loyal opposition. The problem is that there's so much hostility towards honest inquiry. You're either with them or against them. I remember when the left was horrified at hearing a phrase like that from the Right. Now the Bay Area Left say it.
You're not the first to reframe the issue to Thiel being simply a person who challenges conventional wisdom. As though all contrarians are alike and automatically beyond criticism.
"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron"
Cato later updated the essay and Thiel clarified that he does not want to disenfranchise women:
"While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."
IMO this belief about democracy should be way more controversial than essentially stating woman don't vote libertarian.
Society needs to be a bit better at differentiating exploratory intellectual conversations from statements of belief. It shouldn't be so difficult to have reasoned discussions about controversial topics.
To your second point, he never retracted his original statement because he never said woman shouldn't vote. What statement would you like him to retract? For your sake he still clarified his beliefs "I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised".
Your last sentence may be a truism as well. It's a belief about the way things are, not the way things should be.
Sorry, but the interpretation that Mr. Thiel just has no faith in democracy improving things further seems much more reasonable. Given the entire corpus, do you think Peter Thiel would assert that life would improve if large swathes of the populace were disenfranchised? Please provide some quotes.
Yes! He literally says so:
Thiel: I no longer believe that freedom [meaning capitalism] and democracy are compatible.
Thiel wants to save capitalism, and therefore rejects democracy because in his view you can't have both. That means he wants to disenfranchise everybody except the monied.
I think his view is a bit more nuanced than that. I think that he'd say that the monied are the only ones really enfranchised now, and that public opinion is currently manipulated by those actors through their influence over the media. In such conditions, we'd expect any democracy to be dysfunctional.
communities doesn't mean access to improperly entering people. Try not to conflate the issue.
Half of Facebook's users are (probably) conservative, that is half the user base.
Still sound like you want your echo chamber.
To indulge you: what specific policy proposal did Hillary make and Trump oppose that would be harmful to Facebook employees or users, or contrary to Facebook's goals?
Fwiw, I voted third party.
Trump specifically campaigned on withdrawing from Afghanistan as an "un-winnable" war. Since winning the election he has unfortunately doubled-down on the violence of his predecessors.
There was a somewhat popular interview where Bill O'Reilly asked Trump about Syria, stating if Putin helps Assad fight off ISIS, then Russia/Putin will own Syria. Trump basically said America had its own problems, if we go in we'll own it, why would we want it? Of course he reversed this after election too.
When one finds oneself doubling down on an ideology with more acrimony and fervor, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one is bullying others into agreement instead of convincing others, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one must convince oneself that another's human rights are to be sacrificed for the greater good, one is on the wrong side of history.
Good ideas stand on their own. Good ideas can convince.
Assuming rational, non emotional, actors, which is hardly ever the case. People like Alex Jones have an audience, but bring a good argument to their feet, that say Sandy Hook wasn't a false flag, and you're unlikely to get a change in belief.
That's the human condition. So many of us are fools.
That right there is an attempt to convince. However, if people then took it on themselves to punch, harass, or get the advocates of those ideas fired, then that would be an attempt to suppress.