Even if this is true--i.e. that there is a statistically significant difference in means--this is irrelevant unless it is established...
-
-
-
that such a mean difference has any meaning effect on work output. Then, we'd need to explore whether within-group if such differences...
-
also have some effect on work output. In other words, if your delta between women and men is, say, 1.5 units and this is meaningful...
-
then why aren't you screening/implementing policies that exclude men that are 1.5 units below mean?
-
This is not addressed by fraudulent non-PhD-haver James Damore. Nor is it ever made clear how such a small difference in means...
-
with such a wide distribution (i.e. high-variance) has any relevant effect on work output.
-
This is like saying, "well, women are statistically-significantly shorter." This is true, but irrelevant for the job.
-
So in other words, throwing scientific "facts" out there is fucking irrelevant because those "facts" have nothing to do with the thesis.
-
They are, instead, used as smokescreens and touchstones for pre-defined bigotry. "I HAVE DEPLOYED A SCIENCE I AM INFALLIBLE."
-
Furthermore, his claims of "cultural universality" fail at their face. His argument--based on heterosexual relationships--actually makes...
-
for a pretty convincing argument to hire nothing but lesbians. I'm down with that.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That makes the Big 5 (which I hate anyway) extra-sexist if true.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.