You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Scott Adams’ tag.

In July 2017, a then-Google employee, James Damore, wrote a ten-page essay, including footnotes, about Google’s approach to diversity.

While other sites posted abridged versions, you can read ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’ in full here and here: recommended reading for all.

Consider that things like this are happening — or could so easily happen — i.e. blacklists, suggested in this supposed joke:

Summary

James Damore’s perspective is one of promoting diversity but doing it in a realistic, individualised way that looks at people’s strengths and perceived weaknesses — and making good use of both. He wrote that his commentary pertained only to the Mountain View, California location where he works.

Two excerpts follow. The first is the introduction:

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.

Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

The second is this brief part from his detailed conclusion:

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Heavy summarised his detailed conclusion as follows:

He suggested Google do the following: De-moralize diversity; stop alienating conservatives; confront its biases; stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races; have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of its diversity programs; focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity; de-emphasize empathy; prioritize intention; be open about the science of human nature; and reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

Reaction

This is a summary of the reaction by Damore’s colleagues:

On Saturday, August 5, Business Insider reported on the reaction from certain Google employees (tweets at the link):

Google employees are up in arms after a senior engineer at the company penned an anti-diversity manifesto that has spread through the company like wildfire.

At that time, no one knew the author’s identity because only excerpts were available. Business Insider contacted Google for comment:

A Google spokesperson referred Business Insider to internal memos posted by Google’s head of diverisity, Danielle Brown, as well as to an internal post by Ari Balogh, a Google VP of engineering.

Business Insider found out about the document from Vice‘s Motherboard, whose team saw it at Gizmodo.

Dilbert’s Scott Adams tweeted the link to the Business Insider article:

On Monday, August 7, Google fired Damore. Bloomberg reports:

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” He said he’s “currently exploring all possible legal remedies” …

Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee. A Google representative, asked about the dismissal, referred to Pichai’s memo.

Damore’s 10-page memorandum accused Google of silencing conservative political opinions and argued that biological differences play a role in the shortage of women in tech and leadership positions. It circulated widely inside the company and became public over the weekend, causing a furor that amplified the pressure on Google executives to take a more definitive stand.

After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Brown said in the statement. “We’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”

It looks as if Google might have been trying to protect themselves:

The memo and surrounding debate comes as Google fends off a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the company systemically discriminates against women. Google has denied the charges, arguing that it doesn’t have a gender gap in pay, but has declined to share full salary information with the government. According to the company’s most recent demographic report, 69 percent of its workforce and 80 percent of its technical staff are male.

However, Bloomberg stated that the subject of diverse opinions at Google arose during their shareholder meeting in June (emphases mine):

A shareholder asked executives whether conservatives would feel welcome at the company. Executives disagreed with the idea that anyone wouldn’t.

“The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking,” Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt said at the time. “You’ll also find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us.”

Yes, and that is the problem. I have read anecdotally from conservative Silicon Valley employees that they keep their heads down and get on with the work. They said they would not dare to discuss social issues or politics and do their best to fit in with the prevailing culture because they like their work.

Heavy says that Damore told a New York Times reporter:

he will likely take legal action against Google. He said he believes the company acted illegally by firing him.

“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” Damore told the New York Times. He said he wrote the memo to start an “honest discussion” about what he believes to be Google’s intolerance for ideas that don’t fit into its left-leaning biases, according to the Times.

Damore told the Times he submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board before he was fired, claiming Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He said it is “illegal to retaliate” against a complaint made to the NLRB.

An account to help with his legal fees is now open on WeSearchr.com.

Twitter lit up.

Alternative media’s Mike Cernovich had this pertinent comment:

A young woman took exception to Google employees who were happy about Damore’s dismissal:

A professor of evolutionary psychology defended Damore:

Who is James Damore?

Heavy tells us that Damore is originally from Illinois.

He graduated from the prestigious — and rigorous — Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy in 2007.

He was also a chess champion in his youth:

As a child, Damore was a chess champion, earning the FIDE Master title, putting him in the >99th percentile, according to his CV. He won regional tournaments in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and finished second in the Nation Youth Action 2003 Chess Tournament.

He graduated with high honours from the University of Illinois:

he graduated in 2010 in the top 3 percent of his class with a degree in molecular and cellular biology, according to his CV. He graduated as a James Scholar and was given the Bronze Tablet, the highest awards given to graduates, he said.

He then enrolled in a graduate programme at Harvard University:

Damore also pursued his Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard University in from 2011 to 2013, according to his Linkedin profile. He is listed in the alumni section of the Harvard Systems Biology Ph.D. program, but it is not clear if he completed the degree.

He was employed as a researcher at Harvard, MIT and Princeton:

He published two research papers while working at Jeff Gore’s biophysics laboratory at MIT in 2011 and 2012: “Understanding microbial cooperation” and “A slowly evolving host moves first in symbiotic interactions.”

He says that he has “Senior or graduate level knowledge of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, game theory, and computer programming.”

He was delighted to be offered a job at Google in December 2013:

“Flying home tonight and starting at Google in two weeks, so excited,” he wrote on Facebook. Damore worked on infrastructure for Google’s search product, according to the New York Times.

Heavy delved into Damore’s Facebook musings and posted a few of them. Not surprisingly, this genius is an introvert, although not without friends. He also tries to make life as efficient a process as possible. He does not like to waste time. He is also an artist and posts his charcoal drawings on Facebook.

Instant popularity and job offers

James Damore’s Google memo has made him a national hero.

He has attracted the attention of many online, including Julian Assange:

Gab — similar to Twitter but less censorious — also wants to interview Damore:

It looks as if James Damore has an even brighter future ahead of him. I wish him all the best and applaud him for his guts.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s plan for healthcare was pulled on Friday, March 24, 2017. There wasn’t enough support to even hold a vote in the House of Representatives.

It wasn’t a very good plan, anyway: too many vested interests.

However, the media and other opponents of President Donald Trump said he failed.

Dilbert’s Scott Adams sees this as a good thing, because Trump has now risen from being a dictator to merely incompetent (emphases in the original):

The real story is happening in parallel with the healthcare story, and that’s what renders it invisible. Something enormous is happening that has nothing to do with anything you are seeing in the news. In fact, you’ll probably read it here for the first time.

I’m dragging this out to see if you can guess the big news before I tell you. It is something I predicted would happen. It is something the country needs MORE than healthcare. It was, until yesterday, perceived as the biggest problem in the United States, if not the entire world.

And that problem almost totally went away yesterday. The smell might linger, but the problem has ended. We should be celebrating, but instead we will be yammering about healthcare …

With the failure of the Ryan healthcare bill, the illusion of Trump-is-Hitler has been fully replaced with Trump-is-incompetent meme. Look for the new meme to dominate the news, probably through the summer. By year end, you will see a second turn, from incompetent to “Competent, but we don’t like it.”

I have been predicting this story arc for some time now. So far, we’re ahead of schedule …

In all seriousness, the Trump-is-Hitler illusion was the biggest problem in the country, and maybe the world. It was scaring people to the point of bad health. It made any kind of political conversation impossible. It turned neighbors and friends against each other in a way we have never before seen. It was inviting violence, political instability, and worse … 

No one wants an incompetent president, but calling the other side a bunch of bumblers is routine politics. We just went from an extraordinary risk (Trump=Hitler) to ordinary politics (The other side=incompetent). Ordinary politics won’t spark a revolution or make you punch a coworker. This is a good day for all of us …

As Adams illustrated in his post, that day, CNN came out with an article by Trump’s biographer Michael D’Antonio, ‘Why Trump the deal-maker came off looking incompetent’. It’s a shame D’Antonio didn’t use the word in his article. D’Antonio has a bee in his bonnet over Trump and trashed him last year. (For more information, see this Podesta WikiLeaks email from March 2016 and a LifeZette article from last October.)

However, we have a video of Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on CNN calling Trump incompetent. Way to go!

Of course, this could start calls from Democrats for action to be taken against Trump’s presidency. (On Sunday, March 26, an article appeared in The Atlantic discussing what would happen if Trump were impeached.)

Let’s hope Adams is right with his prediction of ‘Competent, but we don’t like it’.

This year, two old and significant predictions about Donald Trump as president surfaced.

The older one dates from 1990. Scott Adams foresaw this in Dilbert 26 years ago:

 

In 2000, the Simpsons’ creators predicted a Trump presidency. Lisa succeeds him as the first female president and sets out to fix ‘Trump’s’ budget deficit.

As the narrator of this fascinating selection of clips from The Simpsons explains, there was no animation of Trump in the 2000 episode, just a mention of his name.

The animation of Trump came later in a 2015 short made after he declared his candidacy at Trump Tower. In it, Homer gets lost in the vortex of the billionaire’s hair.

The video above has more odd predictions from The Simpsons. Some are more accurate than others. Of particular interest is the 1997 clip showing iPhone-type mobile devices and another one from that year about Ebola. Fascinating!

In February, I recommended reading Scott Adams‘s posts on Donald Trump’s candidacy. Especially enjoyable were the comment threads.

A few weeks later, he wrote about trouble he had been having from anti-Trump leftists. (He lives near San Francisco, which tells you all you need to know.) Consequently, he said he was going to close his comments section.

Since then, I continued reading his posts with a growing sense of disappointment, particularly over the past few weeks. Some time ago, he came out in support of Hillary Clinton but was still writing Trump posts. Then, when the fake sex scandal stories about Trump hit and WikiLeaks revealed the Democrats as scheming creeps, he switched to Gary Johnson (Libertarian):

Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that’s the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality so I moved my endorsement to Gary Johnson …

To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn’t know what Allepo [sic] was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won’t slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump.

If you take allegations of sex abuse seriously – and you should – vote Johnson. To vote for Clinton or Trump is to be seen by others as an enabler for sexual abuse. I don’t think that’s what anyone had in mind by breaking the glass ceiling. Don’t let it happen to you.

You might enjoy my book because you’re not sure if I’m really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand. 

I started going off him at that point, largely because he wrote in the same post:

I don’t know if any of the allegations against the Clinton’s [sic] are true …

He wasn’t reading newspapers in the 1990s? Amazing. He’s old enough to know better.

Then he and his girlfriend went to Switzerland on holiday. On October 10, he posted an informative essay about his experience there and ended it with this:

Trump is trying to make America a bit more like Switzerland. Clinton is trying to make America less like Switzerland. Spend a day in Switzerland and tell me who has the better plan. This country is amazing.

He’s really worried about his brand. He could retire, but he enjoys his work.

However, to be fair to Adams, he has recently experienced problems with his Twitter and Periscope accounts:

I was just on Periscope, the streaming app owned by Twitter. The running count for number of live followers on my session dropped from over a thousand to zero for no obvious reason, even though plenty of people were still on and interacting with me. At a count of over a thousand viewers I would have been close to the #1 stream on the app at that moment …

And, oddly enough, while I was writing this (Wednesday afternoon UK time), his blog site went down completely.

Fortunately, I was able to read his Trump endorsement of October 25. It’s called ‘The Bully Party’. How true! Excerpts follow (emphasis mine):

I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

If you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood …

Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

He rightly criticises the media for not covering the Project Veritas videos, especially the one about the violence Democrats pay lowlives to cause at Trump rallies. He also mentioned that no one is talking about Joe Biden’s desire to beat up Donald Trump.

Now — finally — he condemns Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (emphases in the original):

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right? …

She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.

I’ll say that again. 

As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.

Intentionally

I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms 

Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.” 

Something just changed.

I hope he is right.

It’s a shame Adams never reopened his comments section. A lot of intelligent discussions took place on those threads.

I am still of two minds about Scott Adams. But at least he finally endorsed Trump.

And I hope his online issues are resolved soon.

No one deserves to be bullied in any way, shape or form. But that is what 21st century Democrats do.

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has devoted his blog posts to Donald Trump since August 2015.

You can read the back catalogue here. Do read the comments, which are fascinating. N.B.: The more recent posts might say ‘0 comments’, but if you click, you’ll see several hundred, if not 1,000+.

Adams’s premise is that Trump is a ‘master persuader’, using words in a unique way that stick in our memory. Adams has studied persuasion and recognises the technique. In this YouTube video, just under five minutes long, he explains Trump’s verbal strategy to CNN:

Yet, not all Americans are so persuaded. Indeed, some are frightened.

Adams’s post of February 11 discusses the physical reaction of fear that some people experience when Trump’s name is mentioned. Adams observes:

I have seen people’s bodies twist up and go into full panic at the thought of him being president. I’m talking about actual, literal, bodily fear, as if a monster is already in house and you don’t know where it is hiding. Even professional members of the media feel this fear.

And yet I feel none of that fear – not even a trace amount. To me, Trump looks like the safest candidate in the history of presidential elections, and I don’t even share his politics on a number of topics. So I have to ask myself why I have zero fear of Trump while so many others are in full panic mode. Should I be more afraid?

I, too, think Trump is the ‘safest candidate’ America has had in a very long time. Perhaps the safest since Reagan, and anyone who was at least a teenager in 1980 remembers how left-wing pundits and journalists tried to frighten everyone, saying he was stupid and warmongering — a potentially lethal combination for one who was in charge of pressing the nuclear button. By 1982, having voted against him in 1980, I had changed my mind about him completely.

However, I digress. Back to a summary of Adams’s post on why Donald Trump terrifies people along with some of my own input.

Can we say it is because of his social policies? Not really. Trump has said nothing about cutting welfare programmes. He also wants a form of universal health care.

The reason might concern what Trump says about building a wall between the US and Mexico. Yet, a double fence has been partially built already. This came about during Bush II’s administration via the Secure Fence Act 2006. This fence was partially constructed by 2009, but work stopped because Congress refused to allocate $1.2bn and remains unfinished today. It seems like such a small sum. Get it finished.

Then Trump said there should be a temporary ban on Muslim travel to and from the United States until immigration officials have a clearer idea of the terrorist threat to America. That statement turned out to be rather prescient considering that days later the San Bernardino attack took place. Not long after that, a Muslim family from England was refused permission to fly — under Obama’s watch — to the US before Christmas. A relative was said to have had extremist links.

Trump is telling the truth about porous borders and real terrorism.

Adams rightly points out that the flip side of this is that Trump wants Americans to live in safety (emphases in the original):

… he is consistent about protecting U.S. Citizens from non-citizens. That’s the job description of the President of the United States. If you are a citizen, Trump has the strongest immigration plan for keeping YOU safe, even if it is bad news for non-citizens.

Furthermore:

All past presidents have had robust deportation programs for illegal immigrants. Trump might do more of it, and I respect any argument that says more deportations might be too much. But I don’t see any risk of legal citizens being deported. So I have trouble understanding how this topic could make legal citizens physically afraid.

Trump detractors will say that it’s his behaviour on the hustings. Even then:

he can turn off the “bad boy” act any time he wants. He is completely honest about playing the clown for the primaries, in order to win. We have never seen a candidate this transparent. 

Also keep in mind that Trump is the non-drinker in the crowd. If you want to assess the risk of bad presidential decisions under pressure, you have to factor in how many of the other candidates would be on prescription meds or enjoying a stiff drink after work. And what about the general health of a candidate? That probably matters for decision-making under pressure. Trump is the safe bet on this dimension.

Trump does not drink because his older brother Fred died from alcoholism.

Trump’s alpha white male brashness is undoubtedly the top reason why he terrifies some people. Adams explains that much of this is an act for primary season. His seeming unpredictability becomes predictable. He says the media understand it better now, even if they oppose his candidacy.

Adams goes on to unpack what appears to be a lack of empathy on Trump’s part, yet it is what New York empathy looks like. Adams is from upstate New York. I have known dozens of New Yorkers, mostly at university, and, yes, they are like Donald Trump, so maybe that is why I, like Adams, have gravitated towards him. Adams explains:

Where I grew up, in upstate New York, empathy looks exactly like Trump. Political correctness wasn’t a thing when I grew up, and probably isn’t a thing in my old hometown today. If you’re trying to “make America great” or anything productive at all, you’re 100% empathetic according to the way I was raised. Anything else is posture. Where I grew up, you have to be useful or go home. Trump is trying to be useful. That’s empathy, according to my people. 

You see Trump’s ambitions as coming from narcissism and ego. Every famous person has a bit of that. But I can tell you as a protestant-raised kid from New York, where emotions go to hide forever inside people’s bodies, that Trump’s approach is what passes for empathy for white, New York protestants. If we’re trying to be useful, it’s because we care. 

Trump is a Presbyterian, incidentally.

Adams opened the floor to his readers who responded in droves. There were 2,228 comments. Generally, people thought Trump terrifies people because he:

1/ Represents a real threat to political correctness and the culture that has been shaped around it;

2/ Would expose and possibly overturn the combine between MSM and left- as well as right-wing politics;

3/ Is not a career politician and won’t act like one if elected: he will do what he says and not back off.

Donald Trump is popular with a large number of Americans because he has effectively tapped into their frustrations about moving from a high-trust to a low-trust society. Trump would not use those words and his supporters might not either, but, essentially, this is what is happening in America and in western Europe.

An article on Those Who Can See describes the differences between high-trust and low-trust societies. It is lengthy, but the paragraphs are short and there are a number of useful graphs to illustrate the points about trust.

It is worth pointing out that, even on the same continent, one can have high-trust and low-trust societies, independent of race or creed. The article explains that western Europe developed differently during the Middle Ages. A map of the continent shows a curved line marking the east-west boundary. The ever-expanding EU and associated migration from eastern to western Europe is a great source of social frustration. We’re getting more low-trust people in high-trust environments, and there are times when low-trust refuses to join high-trust in a social compact. But I digress.

Back to Trump. He might not win the nomination. I hope he does. He might not win the presidency, although I think he would have an excellent chance. He knows much of the US and, by the end of primary season, will also know the rest of the nation like the back of his hand.

Furthermore, he is an honest sinner. What don’t we know about him would qualify as too much information.

But there is something more.

As one of Adams’s readers puts it, Trump is the greatest way that Americans can object to their left-right-MSM establishment.

Trump knows the players. He has been at the top for so long, he knows the ins and outs of every major scandal and combine.

He has the power and the personality to tell the truth about both.

That is why Donald Trump terrifies people.

And that is precisely why he should be America’s next president.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post -- not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 -- resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,006 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

August 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,133,686 hits