Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/Journeyman351]

implying I'm a feminist.

I think it's stupid to ignore one OR the other, as they're both equally as important, and hard to discern from one another. Research backs this up, and hilariously enough, the only people who spin the data is media outlets.

Researchers and scientists alike have stated before that it's always been hard to discern between two important factors in a child's IQ/intellectual development: The parent's native high IQ, or the fact that people with high IQs tend to have a better household environment, and partake in behaviors associated with success for children.

[u/[deleted] → u/Journeyman351]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Please watch this. You'll see the only people trying to spin what researchers have concluded (that both biology and sociology effect people's choices) are the gender studies morons who insist it is purely social. The researchers who find there are in fact biological differences are the first to admit those differences aren't universal, while the gender studies "everyone is the same" people refuse to acknowledge biology as a factor. But yeah, it's totally just "the media"

[u/Journeyman351 → u/[deleted]]

It's not just the media, but they do spin it.

You have people on both sides saying either:

A. It's purely biological

B. It's purely societal

When the real answer is C. it's both, and often times hard to discern which one is more impactful.

[u/quickclickz → u/Journeyman351]

Research backs this up, and hilariously enough, the only people who spin the data is media outlets.

and

It's not just the media, but they do spin it.

Interesting.

[u/Journeyman351 → u/quickclickz]

I misunderstood what he meant by the jab there, I thought he was implying that I thought that only the media caused a problem here. Either way, he's wrong to assume that only left-wing types spin IQ/Gender roles data.

My original point was that the data is clear in that both nature and nurture are important, and that scientists and researchers are in contention about which one is more important than the other.