Google Memo

[SuburbanFarmer]

Link here
https://archive.is/z6xxP

I loved this bit:

The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.

The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.
Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.
Likewise, if the races are no different from each other, then the racial mix of a company can’t rationally matter to the company’s bottom line. The only reasons to value diversity would be at the levels of legal compliance with government regulations, public relations virtue-signalling, and deontological morality – not practical effectiveness. Legal, PR, and moral reasons can be good reasons for companies to do things. But corporate diversity was never justified to shareholders as a way to avoid lawsuits, PR blowback, or moral shame; it was justified as a competitive business necessity.
So, if the sexes and races don’t differ at all, and if psychological interchangeability is true, then there’s no practical business case for diversity.
On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact.

[Kazmyr]

I'm more curious about how being bipolar is also a gender now too...

Probably on there as another cudgel of the oppressed. "Proudly bipolar" = fire me and pucker your anus for the zero-lube lawsuit.

Resumes are going to be less about relevant experience/skills and more about "here's my 6 different genders that I use, diagnosed mental disorders..."

"Fucking stellar, you're hired. How's upper management sound?"

[Kazmyr]

Link here
https://archive.is/z6xxP

I loved this bit:

The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.

The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.
Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.
Likewise, if the races are no different from each other, then the racial mix of a company can’t rationally matter to the company’s bottom line. The only reasons to value diversity would be at the levels of legal compliance with government regulations, public relations virtue-signalling, and deontological morality – not practical effectiveness. Legal, PR, and moral reasons can be good reasons for companies to do things. But corporate diversity was never justified to shareholders as a way to avoid lawsuits, PR blowback, or moral shame; it was justified as a competitive business necessity.
So, if the sexes and races don’t differ at all, and if psychological interchangeability is true, then there’s no practical business case for diversity.
On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact.

[apeman]

I'm more curious about how being bipolar is also a gender now too...

Probably on there as another cudgel of the oppressed. "Proudly bipolar" = fire me and pucker your anus for the zero-lube lawsuit.

Resumes are going to be less about relevant experience/skills and more about "here's my 6 different genders that I use, diagnosed mental disorders..."

"Fucking stellar, you're hired. How's upper management sound?"

[clubgop]

But GCF told me the SJW nanny staters could be reason with. Why was he dishonest?

[SuburbanFarmer]

But GCF told me the SJW nanny staters could be reason with. Why was he dishonest?

I did say 'usually'. And even a third-dimension dragon-kin autistic water weaver is easier to talk to than an evangelical with his heels dug in.

[Kazmyr]

[clubgop]

GCF's Beauty consultant that be.

[Fife]

Pictured: Aids Skrillex

IRL LOL

:goteam: :drunk:

[Dand]

Jordan Petersen is interviewing the google guy today and will post it thereafter, JBP is gonna come under a shit ton of fire for this, will be interesting.

But as he says, you pay a price for everything you do, and you pay a price for everything you don't do

That'll be a nice crossover :goteam: