I know how TI is structured, but I’m confident they’re top 20 anyway. Which team not at TI is better, do you think? Complexity? Navi? I don’t think so.
One thing to keep in mind is that humans have to process the game from the image on the screen and input through a mouse and keyboard. We have to move the mouse to react to things. The computer is super-human in part because it doesn't have to do these things. It will be interesting to see if they can translate their learnings to bots that react from the image on the screen rather than the API.
This is a straw-man argument, the point is that if women are predisposed to be less interested in a profession than maybe that explains why there are less woman in that profession. Also the memo is about evaluating everyone based on their merits, not sure how you got the idea that it was for discriminating against women.
> not sure how you got the idea that it was for discriminating against women.
Not sure where the author got the idea that Google is discriminating against men, either. As I said elsewhere: unless he has solid proof that the distribution of resumes Google gets and the number of people hired diverge significantly, and that the divergence is only explained through some form of discrimination, he's talking out of his ass.
There absolutely are people who are against any claims that men and women are biologically different, the president of Harvard got fired for even hinting that this was a possibility. Another way to look at it, if there are differences between men and women than you would expect men to be better at some things and women to be better at some things. Try claiming one of the sexes is better at anything and see how that goes over.
Larry Summers didn't merely say they were different, he used that to argue that it helped explain what others attribute to discrimination - that's different. (And from doing some googling, it's also apparently not why he was fired, even though it did cause controversy.) My point is that merely pointing out that men and women are different doesn't weaken any of the arguments that people tend to use to justify diversity programs.
I'd like to see your data supporting the assertion that qualified diverse candidates are rejected at greater rates. The thing is he wouldn't of been fired for arguing the opposite claim, this is clearly discrimination.
The data is incredibly easy to find and has been demonstrated for decades. It's an easy experiment: two identical candidates, one of them with an ethnic name (or actor) and one of them is white. It also consistently shows that white candidates do better than black candidates, despite having identical resumes.
This has been shown across society, including applications for housing, police stops, punishments in school, etc. I don't know why employment would be the one exception.
The burden of proof is on the side arguing there's something "special" about Google. The effect is present everywhere we've looked. Lacking any specific evidence to the contrary, it's present in Google hiring too.
I don't usually like to ask for citations, but he said the data was easily found which is clearly false in this case. And there are good reasons to believe google, a company which hires a "VP of Diversity" might be different from the companies previously studied in entirely different industries with entirely different hiring practices and requirements. I know in academia, female applicants are favored in the hard sciences: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/new-study-explores-g...
We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority candidates
...
Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the Australian Public Service, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.
The truth of what he said has nothing to do with why he was fired. He was fired for not being politically correct and offending people, not because his arguments were right or wrong. People are usually most outraged by statements which are true or close to true but which they do not want to believe.
No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers.
> No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers.
All good, except he did not make that argument or anything similar to it. He did not state that women inherently suffer from biological weaknesses of any sort. And no, his ideas did not harm anyone (except perhaps indirectly himself). Literally nobody got hurt except him, he is the sole victim of the ordeal.
I hope that you have read the document in its original form, which is a PDF with some (admittedly weak) references.
But that is only because you did not study psychology in which case you would know that most things in that manifesto are scientifically proven and what he said does makes sense for women AS A GROUP not individually... :/
