Smutte
I will post what I just posted below: "Do you need help interpreting the data and graph given previous conversation? The height of the bars represent the number of deaths over different years and the bars are basically same height. I.e. considering all deaths, covid and actions taken (no lockdown but more distancing), no more than usual have died. Especially considering last year was a bit lower and therefore likely some old people who didnt die last year unfortunately did so this year."
If you only look at one month then yes there is absolutely an increase. If you want to stare blindly at that month then go ahead. Scream if you want to also. But I think some might be interested in hearing that no more than usual have died in Sweden this year. I have seen similar stats for other countries.
Do you need help interpreting the data and graph given previous conversation? The height of the bars represent the number of deaths over different years and the bars are basically same height. I.e. considering all deaths, covid and actions taken (no lockdown but more distancing), no more than usual have died. Especially considering last year was a bit lower and therefore likely some old people who didnt die last year unfortunately did so this year.
Total (and monthly) deaths per 100k inhabitants, per Jan-Sep period each year. The bar-chart shows the "Total" row from the Excel. Both illustrations have descriptions in English
There you go. Data from official government agency. "Preliminary" and not full year since we're only in October 2020 now.
https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkni...
Clearly the people representing your links are not (according to me). Here is a good example from a pretty well known individual:
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-...
The tone and way of reasoning is like from another world compared to Sadedin.
First quote doesn't say anything concrete. Someone thinks it is "easier" to attribute to culture without really linking it to the nature of Google recruiting from a small part of the population. The statement can be true without the memo being wrong. I understand the quote sounds like its critical of the memo, but really what does it say? That its hard to tell and that culture might (or even is) be a bigger factor? That would not be contrary to anything in the memo
The second comment is the "least bad" critique that I have seen. However, to me its quite obviously written with an agenda. Read the comments under her post. Especially the ones from Jeremy Arnold. Note particularly his tone compared to hers and how he even points out her quite obvious agenda. Also notice how the conversation shifts to Julie Taylor and how the climate of discussion changed. My point is that I am not competent enough and dont have enough time to read through and understand all sources, find my own sources to balance her agenda etcetc. Lets hope more honest and competent people, who have the ability to see both sides, jump into the debate.
"And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations,"
From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership"
They are saying the exact same thing? In what way does the scientist disagree in concrete words with things that is actually written in the memo?
Also, to avoid further misunderstandings...
Quote from link in the Wired article to Psychology Today: "Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe" This is not what the memo did, as far as I can tell. See the quote from the memo again. He is suggesting that "biological sex" (the scientist's words) MAY IN PART explain why the split men/women is not EXACTLY THE SAME (sorry for caps).
Do you see how the scientist never actually comments anything concrete in the memo, but only concepts that are related?
The easy answer to you question (which I think many would agree with) is yes. However, reality is a bit more complicated. Is the 75/25 split in the total population or Google applicants? Are differences originating from things under Google control or from other parts of society? etcetcetc. This is the conversation that should be had. To see differences and honestly discuss them (including striking down on unfair discrimination), while also discussing what the goal should be and what trade-offs we might want to make to get there.
But all of this is impossible when a significant and loud part of the population answer with calling people "sexist" and firing anyone who tries to broaden and nuance the conversation
Someone asked whats up with this James guy.
You answered with something that was completely false and even clearly contrary to what was written.
(You admitted to this.)
I pointed out that your original misrepresentation was similar to what others do in this very drama. E.g. the statement from Google VP of Diversity attacking James. I also said I didnt mean to bash you any more (since you admitted), BUT that your original comment was an interesting example/illustration of something bigger.
You obviously took offense.
I tried to explain that I was talking about the comment in general and not you as an individual. I also said Im sorry if I offended you. But the fact remains that your comment was a misrepresentation of the memo that was similar to e.g. how the VP misrepresented it. Although you actually did it more explicitly than her.
If you cant extract yourself as an individual from this observation you will probably never get it. If you think Im an idiot, thats ok.
James gets accused of something that he really didnt write and people refer to things that are grossly misinterpreted or just plain wrong and clearly not in the actual document (in more general terms the characterizations could be described as lies or misrepresentations of the truth as per my original comment). Just as your attempt to explain why ge got attacked.
A clear difference between your comment and many in this drama is that you retracted your statement and the VP of Google didnt (afaik) and that is good on you! But I never talked about you as an individual in the first place so thats kind of irrelevant to my point. You can call it "unfair" of me to single out your first comment and not your retraction, but again my point wasnt to judge you as an individual. It was to show how that specific comment (partly out of context) was a good example of what is going on.
I think this is getting a bit OT. Again, sorry if you felt personally attacked. That was not what I was after. If you take a step back from the posts and just read them for what they are... maybe you could see that it is a pretty good example of the drama we see around this. The Google VP of Diversity made (imho) quite a similar comment in her statement as you did. She did, however, not detract it as far as I know.
It is actually quite interesting to try to understand... What brings a person to make a statement such as yours, without having read the material in question..? Would the same person (you) also comment on how much he/she likes or dislikes food before having tried it? It seems to me this is not about having a "busy week" but a completely different view of truth, what is "right" and honestly when to talk and when to listen.
I dont mean to continue bashing you, but your comment was such a clear and ironic example/display of what I think is a very big challenge for western society these days.
http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-o...