The problem here is that 100% of the reason you care about Kap getting a job as an NFL QB is due to the race of his father and his political statements. At the same time, the reason reason he hasn't landed a job.... As to the former Google employee, I stated that by all accounts he was good at his job because that's all we know. If you have heard otherwise, by all means, bring that information forward. As far as I've heard he lost his job 100% for political reasons. That's a bit different than your boy Kap getting cut for sucking as an NFL QB to the point where they couldn't justify his contract anymore.
A rare take from liberal circles that fairly presents the argument he was making. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/are-men-and-women-different-or-not_us_5989dee1e4b030f0e267c7af
I remember him kicking ass during that Super Bowl run. Wonder what happened to him. Still, kind of ridiculous that an owner is polling fans to ask whether they would accept CK on their team. What Michael Vick did is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times worse, and yet it's like more people are angered over CK's actions. Ridiculous. Anyway, owners are very stupid for getting fans involved in this. Fans are usually the worst judges of situations- if he's talented enough, bring him on.
I do not think this article reflects his point. He was arguing that science says there are biological differences that explain why men are in tech and go further in the workplace and saying liberals are biased against such science. Except there is no such science. In fact the science says the difference is negligible. He wasn't fired for his views, he was fired for being a distraction.
The trends might be documented at a group level but hiring decisions, industry and career choices and academic priorities are all determined individually. For an industry that has existed for less than a half century, ten- or hundred-thousand year old biological traits are not a meaningful gauge of a capacity or inclination for individual job candidates' motivation or aptitude.
You're greatly simplifying what the science says on what is a rather complex and as of yet not fully explored topic, because it suits your political values. I understand the impulse to do this, as it allows us to happily dismiss/ignore facts that are inconvenient, but it is not a scientific approach to understanding the questions raised. I will quote from one of the articles Major linked to that wasn't behind a paywall: http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx The article does say that claims of gender differences are often exaggerated which is absolutely a fair statement. But it does not mean that science has somehow concluded that all gender differences are negligible. The point is that we should show some care in how we present these differences so as not to make individuals feel inferior or as if they don't belong in their workplace. I thought the Google engineer made an effort to do this. Even with all his qualifications that the demogrophic differerences can't be applied to individuals but merely "might" partially explain statistical data pertaining to unequal representation, people ignored that and focused on the differences and how it is offensive to even bring it up as a possible factor. That sort of objection, regardless of whether you ultimately agree or disagree with his claims, is not a scientific objection. It is a political one.
Harbaugh designed a system around his shortcomings as a QB and during the season where they had one of the best run games and one of the best defenses in the NFL, it made him look competent during the time before the NFL adjusted to running QB's and the option. After that, he was done. Even in those seasons where he appeared halfway competent part of the reason for it was holding him to the fewest or 2nd fewest passing attempts by any starting QB. While other average QB's were throwing for 550-580 passes a season and the elite guys were throwing well over 600 times per year, Kap was throwing 416 times a season. The reason Micheal Vick was welcomed back after what he did was due to his talent. In the NFL, that's what matters. If Kap had Vick level talent, he'd be in camp right now preparing to be a team's starting QB. Pretty much everyone other than those only interested in the politics of this realize that he doesn't have anything approaching that level of talent.
this is the main reason he doesn't have a job. teams don't want that from their starter, and they want a backup to run the plays designed for their starter. ask VY what the market is for guys like that with marginal talent, injury history and fading athleticism. meanwhile statues with an arm are getting 8 figures.
No, I am not simplifying the science on gender differences, the science is simplifying the differences as negligible: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/male-female-brain-difference-not-significant Even the researcher who damore referenced said he was misinterpreting the science and what it is saying. THe idea that a place of work should think about personality differences between the sexes when to date there is no conclusive evidence supporting that is not only dangerous but reflects bias. yet your response is to say I am the one cherry picking science. with all due respect, maybe you should look at the science is saying before making that accusation.
It started inside. Huge reaction and I guess even some outrage within the company. Why? Because it was unnecessary politically and it was based on invalid assumptions. I think he would likely be fired for the new problematic and even toxic environment created. The media and social reaction absolutely doesn't help and probably does have an impact on how quickly he was fired. The sad thing about this is, if you remove all the stupid assumptions and stay with just your stated intention and suggestions, you got some ideas that might be very valid and worth pursuing.
I agree. But if he stuck with that no one probably would have reacted and this would have been a non-story. He probably feels like a victim and doesn't even realize how grossly biased he is. His assumptions betray his bias.
Remember the memo Tom Cruise wrote in Jerry Maguire? This reminds me of the flick. I wonder if the guy had a late night epiphany, cranked this thing out, sent it to the powers that be, and then wondered what he had wrought later, and what the consequences would be.
Because he was right, they do operate in an "ideological echo chamber" and they don't tolerate diversity of opinion. Of course, that's their prerogative. If that's the kind of company they want to be then that's the kind of company they are going to be. There's really not much that can be done about it. Perhaps part of the problem was that he was more used to an academic setting in that he has only been working for about 4 years since he got his latest masters degree from Harvard.
The reason Google had such a reaction was simply cognitive dissonance. Everyone KNOWS only dumb ignorant people think there is any difference between men and women. When they encountered a well spoken reasonable argument to the contrary, well, they weren't going to rethink their opinions or else they would be dumb and ignorant too. They had a crisis of self image and that is what pissed them all off. To fix this they then hallucinated what they wanted the memo to say instead of what it actually said and fired him for creating a hostile work environment...proving his point.
Nah, he's just another member of the white male-industrial victim complex who decided to martyr himself in a blaze of glory, knowing that the incel/mannosphere legions would come careening to his defense. I mean look at this thread, started in order to express @durvasa outrage over the "outrage" - that he obviously read about online, from other outrage-ragers, eugenecists, and the like. OF COURSE he is already being celebrated in alt-right circles and will now carve out a healthy medium term living as a professional victim-mascot for that most oppressed of all species, a white male working in tech. So...good for him...I guess. Too bad for the rest of us who have to live through this tedious wailing again while the white whiner in chief tweets his with impotent impunity in Bedminster.
The Wired article describes studies that show "minimal difference" between sexes in some selected brain features that people often talk about when theorizing reasons for gender differences. But to infer from this that science has conclusively determined that any biological differences between the sexes that affect psychology, preferences or various cognitive abilities is negligible is not sound. There is still a whole lot we don't understand about the physical structure of the brain and its connection to human behavior, preferences, etc. I don't think you would find a scientists who studies the human brain who says we have it all figured out. And to return for a second to the article Major linked to: http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx Consider this sentence that begins the last paragraph: The sentence implies there exists at least some evidence for gender differences that can cause concern. If it is true that any such differences are negligible, as you claim, there is no cause for concern. Can you reconcile your position with the existence of that sentence in the article? A truly neutral position, absent any conclusive evidence one way or the other, would be to neither assume the differences exist or don't exist. Damore is claiming that his company's policies and training was implying that such differences don't exist, and he was essentially disputing that implicit assumption. As a neutral observer, I don't think it's correct to charge either position as being more "biased" than the other.
White males..... upset they have only most of the power instead of it all? Anyone get that American Dad joke? Seriously though, this came off as a man lecturing in a profoundly stupid way.
