[ntuch]

> Do you contest there are female (software) engineers, or at least one female software engineer, in the highest echelons that are completely technically on par with their male counterparts?

Why would I contest that?

After I just said, "there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter."

Your question is like asking, "do you disagree with the fact that yao ming is at least as tall as other basketball players"

Seriously man, WTF are you doing? Are you even reading my posts???

> Can you prove that these female engineers (or even this single female engineer) has a "man brain" that allows her to be on par with her male counterparts?

What??

[craigsmansion]

> Why would I contest that?

Good, you do not contest that, which, frankly, would have been a silly thing to do.

> After I just said, "there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter."

So, "there are fewer women in IT because women tend to be [biological argument]"

Now what here is the [biological argument]?

We've already established that there is at least one woman who is just as capable a programmer or software engineer as any man could be.

That means this woman is exceptional because either:

A) She has a specific biologically determined male trait

or

B) She is not exceptionally different in any biological way but somehow has a unique environment that allows her to be an exceptional programmer.

Occam's razor suggests B here, in the absence of extra-ordinary evidence to suggest A.

Therefore it would be prudent for any employer to offer a benefit for women to shortcut the much complicated and convoluted environmental and social factors that are involved in the B scenario.

Any interlocutor who claims to have found evidence of the [biological component], and as such support A, but does not back this up rigorously, can be assumed to be working against the interests of the employer. Whether this is for ego, political, or religious reasons is irrelevant.

[ntuch]

> Good, you do not contest that

Literally nobody has ever contested it. The google manifesto didn't contest it. You just imagined it. You're arguing against a straw man. You always have been.

> So, "there are fewer women in IT because women tend to be [biological argument]"

> Now what here is the [biological argument]?

If we go back to talking about women, you're just going to start imagining straw man again. You seemed to have a moment of clarity when I mentioned asians and basketball, so stick with that.

There are fewer asians in the NBA because asians tend to be shorter, on average. Even though that's true of the average, Yao Ming is over seven feet tall.

Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences. Yet for some reason, here's what you have made up, entirely on your own, out of whole cloth: "There are fewer asians in the NBA, and those that are in the NBA are all shorter than the men in the NBA" <--- that's your straw man. That's not the argument that's on the table.

And this:

> She has a specific biologically determined male trait

is just another example of you not getting it. "Height" is not a "specific biologically determined <group> trait."

It's possible for a group of people to be taller on average, or shorter on average than another group. But that doesn't mean that "short" is a "biologically determined asian trait."

Here's a picture of the straw man you're arguing against: http://i.imgur.com/QurucPk.png

You must think that's what the google manifesto claimed, otherwise you wouldn't have said "specific biologically determined male trait."

Here's a picture of what everyone else except you is actually talking about: http://i.imgur.com/005ojrV.png

There are more men than women available at certain points on the line, but if you selected only people at some specific point, then men and women would have exactly the same value - just like how, there are fewer asians at the point on the line labeled, "seven feet tall" however, if I selected people at that point, Yao Ming would be seven feet tall.

It's really sad to me that your entire objection was based on a straw man. Some guy lost his job, and a lot of people are angry, and it's all because you imagined something that wasn't there. It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark.

[craigsmansion]

> You're arguing against a straw man. You always have been.

No, I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument. One you apparently refuse or are unable to follow.

> Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences.

Right. I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions, but, I'm not getting paid for it, and at this point it's no use throwing good science after bad and Google made the right choice already. I don't have to convince anybody.

Suffice to say: the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego, lack of understanding of scientific reasoning, and an Internet connection.

> It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark.

Sorry, but science and reason are not on your side here. Maybe you should calm down instead of assume a partisan position and reason from that. Bad facts make for bad science.

[ntuch]

> I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument

Nope. You're arguing a straw man. You're lying about the contents of the memo.

> I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions

You're lying. You cannot do that. You can only argue against straw man of your own creation.

> the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego

Nope. The people at Google are mainly leftists whose egos were bruised by having the truth presented to them. Instead of refute anything in the memo, they made knee jerk protestations (and often violent threats, as leftists tend to be bullies).

> science and reason are not on your side here.

Oh yes they are. The claims made by the memo are absolutely correct. You cannot even begin to address them, which is why you prefer to lie through straw men.