So, it was entirely the appropriate place for him to express his views on diversity. The problem can only be what those views were.https://twitter.com/lasserimmer/status/894977455123025920 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There's not an appropriate way to publicly hand-wave about how science supports something harmful to your peers when science doesn't.
No-one is suggesting doing that. Suggesting presenting the consensus of the behavioural sciences on gender in discussions on gender.
There's not a clear consensus to present, though. There are interesting findings, but we're nowhere near clear statements about causality.
There are clear consensuses on many things and more women being drawn to working with people &more men to working with things is one of them
Obviously, you retain the right to disbelieve the scientists on this but not to shut down, ban, punish, fire, vilify people citing them.
Vague generalizations from non-scientists who read a paper and think it supports a reactionary change to their workplace shouldn't be. 2/2
What reactionary change?
Memo guy wants to see diversity targets, special support systems out. Many people disagree with him. The science does not simplify this.
Biological gender differences are something to consider when setting targets. There's a reason we won't see 50/50 representation everywhere.
The point is that those differences don't reduce to things that make simple profession preferences fit. As memo guy himself sees.
He does. Treat people as individuals and not as members of groups he said.
I love that approach. If the science is wrong or vague, argue that.
Otherwise, it's a bit like firing someone for "perpetuating stereotypes" for saying you need a uterus to give birth.
"That MIGHT be true, but don't you dare say it out loud."
Clarification: don't think it was inappropriate, think he could have communicated it better, for making point across.
For persuasion, should have focused on STEM pipeline problem & impact on parity goal. EvoPsy is a no-no in SocJus land.
For the evoPsy & Bio info should have given more detail & write in a more nuanced manner, shades of B. Peterson too crude but matter of form
he's a smart guy, hard to understand how he misread so much the reaction, or, maybe he was counting on it, future developments will tell
What appropriate way? You're obviously not allowed to voice opinions that don't match the perceived values of google
If only there were a massive church door to nail this heretical text to.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.