Wednesday assorted links


#2 No.
#5 So that is what America has become. A divided house.

#5 Yes. As recently quoted by a former Washington Post journalist, "we have a cold civil war" currently underway. Trump was the symptom of this but certainly not the cause.

This hurts to say, but I don't see this getting fixed. This will get worse. Debate at this point is nigh impossible and nothing reasonable, no former shared identity, can bring both sides of this debate together any longer. Progressives are demanding total and complete unconditional surrender without realizing that it 100% will not happen. No more middle ground for them...

Fine. To quote Steve Bannon, "Fuck you. War."

So, that's how America dies: with a Peloponnesian War.

I have an alternate theory. These people are just a small cadre of self important idiots who we have, for some reason, decided to pay attention to now. The linked to article even said that despite all the wailing and teeth gnashing, the book sold fine. That suggests to me that the only people who really care what these numbnuts on twitter are saying are themselves and journalists looking to score a few page views.

@MOFO: exactly, most of this is an internet tempest in a teapot. That said, the divide is not imaginary. It's just much less strident and dramatic than it is in comboxes.

From Jordan Peterson's interview last night with fired Google Employee Damore:

Peterson: "Why did you do this?"

Damore: "About a month and a half ago, I went to one of our diversity summits, all of it unrecorded and super-secret and they told me a lot of things that I thought just were not right."

Peterson: "Ok, what do you mean 'unrecorded and super-secret?'"

Damore: "Most meetings at Google are recorded. Anyone at Google can watch it. We're trying to be really open about everything...except for this. They don't want any paper trail for any of these things." "They were telling us about a lot of these potentially illegal practices that they've been doing to try to increase diversity. Basically treating people differently based on what their race or gender are."

This is not a socialist sit-in circle. This is a frickin' FANG with highly developed corporate legal pushing this garbage, probably illegally. There is serious serious money behind this plus serious legal liability. If they are small and vocal it is mostly the foot soldiers, but GOOGLE is not a small cadre. Neither is Facebook. There is power and money behind this BS.

Self important idiots like these also occupy positions in business, government, and especially academia (which originated the language of white privilege, marginalization, etc.). The Leninists are fighting the Trotskyites. A pox on both of their houses.

Better than how da Fonseca died, at the hands of Benjamin Harrison and a small group of American soldiers. Brazilians are the worst.

No, we are awesome. And Deodoro da Fonseca died at home after leaving the lresidency because he was ill. Brazil has never been defeated at war.

Well I wouldn't really call it a war, Benjy's Boys just walked in there and did whatever they wanted and sailed home.

It is a lie, Brazil has always defeated its enemies.

But really, yeah 1891 was not a good year for Brazil

Yes, it was. Brzil's first republican constitution was adopted and Brazil defeat the Navy Uprising.

Sweet. I've always wanted to give rowing a trireme a go.

But it will mean brother fighting brother until the bitter end.

Yours will be the first ship we ram.

So that is how it ends, boundless hatred and aggression.

And still, Tony Pena.

So in Harvard & Yale students are taught that Opiods are bad, but not in Wayne State or Tulane?

Yes, it seems exceedingly unlikely that differences in education explain this. Top students and non-top students are different in many other ways.

The populations these hospitals serve are different.

Wayne State actually has a well-regarded medical school. Overall, Wayne State is a "R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity", one of 115 universities and in the same category with the Harvard and Yale you mentioned.

"Overall, Wayne State is a “R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity"

Says almost nothing about the quality of the Medical School.

Go Blue

The Carnegie classification that you refer to doesn't say anything about whether a university is well-regarded, only about whether it is large. As you observed, it therefore puts Wayne State in the top tier, but not other smaller universities like Dartmouth...

If you read the article, you will see that Wayne State is ranked well in the bottom quartile of medical schools (73rd out of 92).

2. pharmacists administer flu shots

Sure seems that way - 'The cold and flu season is upon us and the Department of Veterans Affairs has once again teamed up with Walgreens Pharmacies nationwide to allow all veterans who are currently enrolled in the VA healthcare system to be able walk into any of the over 8000 Walgreens nationally to receive a vaccination at no cost. Vaccinations will be available through March 31, 2017.

Veterans wishing to receive the no cost vaccination simply need to present a Veterans Identification Card and a photo ID, at any participating Walgreens to receive the vaccination.

In addition, after the Walgreens pharmacist administers the vaccine Walgreens will transmit that information securely to VA where it becomes part of the patient’s electronic medical record.'

I can get my flu shot at CVS in Mass.

However, though the short link text may not be exactly precise, the linked article does try to measure the benefits associated with allowing pharmacists to administer flu vaccines by comparing vaccination rates in different states.

Which seems to be moot in terms of 'should', at least according to the article itself - 'Currently, all 50 states and Washington, DC, allow pharmacists to administer immunizations to adults. Regulations allowing pharmacists to administer immunizations to adults were adopted in certain states in the 1990s, while many others have passed legislation in the subsequent years.'

It's not *entirely* moot, as there are some insurances that cover flu shots through a doctor or PA but not through a pharmacist, as I found to my dismay in one job.

And of course beside the one example of flu shots, certainly it at least implies something about allowing pharmacists to do other things and the presumed effects. (Wouldn't want them to prescribe opioids themselves, see 1).

@mulp - right you are. Last year my Greek uncle (who came to the USA under a medical visa, due to his advanced age, and could have stayed here for 10 years but did not like the USA so he went back, ha! take that Trump) got a flu shot at a local pharmacy here in DC. So this is fake news.

I get all my boosters like TDAP at Walgreens. It's very easy.

I got one at CVS last year. Cheaper and faster than going to the doctor.

#5: Apparently it's now an article of faith on the left that fiction authors are not allowed to write about any character of any race but their own. Even if that race is fucking werewolves in a fantasy novel. The only confusing thing to me is why we allow people like this to continue to pollute our national conversations with their idiocy and drivel.

Well, the morons pollute for attention, and Tyler gives the morons attention to get .00032 cents per click and pageview and comment.

Everybody wins, really. And here's some more money for you, Ty.

You can't possibly understand what a werewolf goes through!

Sure I can, I own the album.

The VHS cassette, you mean -

Whereas a London werewolf, drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's, stems from Mr. Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner himself -

On Zevon's generally excellent live album Stand In The Fire, he makes some particularly hilarious lyrical substitutions on "Werewolves of London"; highly recommended.

@prior_test3 Don't get Excitable Boy

Check your privilege. American werewolves in London have an easy time. Try being a Nigerian vampire in South Africa.

Did you actually read the article. The book is getting nailed for being about a white women who becomes enlightened about racism upon going to college.
This is the sort of racial-conscious critique I can fully support.

The book is getting nailed for being about a white women who becomes enlightened about racism upon going to college.

I don't blame them. That's a scenario that manages to be both hackneyed and hideously implausible.

yeah, so "hideously implausible" that the exact same scenario played out with the son of the guy who runs stormfront. give me a break mr. "art deco"

You're not woke, nor is a book by and for a privileged white, middle class woman. Third wave feminism and intersectionality are woke.

How dare someone write about learning in college. People don't learn in college. Its all SIGNALLING.

@#4 - complete wrong, Trump *DID* help US steel. "Trump wants to go even further. He has called the United States a "dumping ground" for foreign steel that is subsidized by foreign governments and sold at steep discounts. He vowed to act quickly with tariffs or quotas" - According to game theory, the threat of retaliation forces countries to stop restrictive trade practices, and that's exactly what China did, it stopped subsidizing their steel. For their own good they listened to Trump (much as I don't like Trump).

If somebody wants to sell you steel for less than it costs them to produce it, why wouldn't you let them?

Its an unfair business practice, and dumping is considered illegal in most trade agreements.

The economic reasons generally flow from the fact that just because one firm has more capital reserves than another, doesnt mean it can use those reserves to force its competition out of the market.

What if the Chinese gave us the steel for free? How bad would that be?

So again America sells its firstborn right for a mess of cheap trinkets.

"And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;"

Use a bit of imagination. You give your product away, your competitors go out of business, them to have a monopoly.

Then you raise your prices to take advantage of the monopoly and suddenly you have competitors again.

derek and Roger Sweeny: exactly how often has that happened in the real world?

Zero times, as it happens. Never. You confuse the modern and completely inaccurate version of why the "robber barons" were bad ("they were gouging consumers") with the actual facts ("they are giving consumers cheaper goods, thereby forcing competitors out of business".) They did not then raise prices, except for in the few cases where they were given government monopolies (talecoms, aviation).

The theory behind dumping being bad is that in the long term, as in decades, the dumped-on country loses their ability to make the good being dumped, and then the dumping country raises prices. Not sure how true that is in practice. On analogous grounds: witness Walmart, Amazon, etc, driving out the more expensive middleman mom-and-pop stores, but I've not seen these big retailers raises prices yet since they don't seem to have that much market power (monopoly power).

Maybe Ray, but big box space is slightly less capital-intensive and skills-intensive than steel mills. 10 years of dumping in retail vs 10 years of dumping in steel likely have different recovery times.

5. Oblique reference to the Google firing?

It's very, VERY Straussian this time.

I date mixed race but I'd love to read a good racist book, but they are hard to find. The closest I found was this book, it's apparently a classic:

The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail (1972 book about what happens when Africans immigrate to France and start taking over; ripped from today's headlines!)

The Turner Diaries. Hello?

Adding Ray Lopez to the list of complete morons who can't tell the difference between India and any other part of the world

I'm guessing he got the reference from the excellent slatestarcodex post about the Google thing:

Which was also linked in Megan McArdle's post about the Google thing.

1. What group of MD's would bet write more prescriptions for opiods?

My answer would be MD's who take more Medicaid patients.

That's the most plausible answer I've seen on this thread so far.


Also, besides oncologists and orthopedic surgeons, few of the prestigious specialties have cause for writing opiate prescriptions. Most pain pills are dispensed by ER docs (many just to quickly clear out junkies faking symptoms, and see real patients), pain management docs, rehab docs, internal medicine, OB/GYN and dentists.

Radiologists, dermatologists and cardiologists have basically zero reason to write pain killer prescriptions. These are also the specialties that are highly disproportionately skewed towards Ivy-tier schools.

This was my initial thought(higher status GPs see higher income patients) but they account for that in the paper.

Guys this is an NBER working paper by a very good economist. She's not reporting raw correlations!!

This is from the ABSTRACT:

Additional evidence suggests that some of this gradient represents a causal effect of education rather than patient selection across physicians or physician selection across medical schools. Altering physician education may therefore be a useful policy tool in fighting the current epidemic.

4: Reminds me of all the articles from 2008-2016 where the WaPo would point out that something was going great in the USA, but they'd go out of their way to stress that OBAMA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, in both the headline and the first sentence.

Consistency is the hallmark of great journalism, after all.

4. It's a steel: China gains another advantage in tech by partnering with U.S. chip maker Qualcomm.

Douthat's solution to the gender wars in Silicon Valley is for women to have more babies: "But since the usual way to reintegrate the sexes is to have them marry one another and raise kids, what Silicon Valley probably needs right now more than either workplace anti-microaggression training or an alt-right underground is a basic friendliness to family, pregnancy and child rearing."

Rayward, this may come as a shock to you, but many married couples actually raise the children together.

Obviously. But we also know child rearing disproportionately falls on women and effects their career prospects/wages more than males.

Douthat notes that Apple's headquarters has a lavish fitness center, but no child care center (which reveals the empty hypocrisy of its virtue signaling). Nerds and gay guys are just the sort of men who would be guilty of that oversight.

Why do you think of "a basic friendliness to family, pregnancy and child rearing" as a women-only thing? Talk about stereotyping gender roles...

I thought it was a brilliant piece.

Make fun of Douthat if you want because his solution to basically everything is "the nuclear family", but at least recognize that the family he's referring to includes both a mother and a father.

I for one would be thrilled if my current job had better options for starting a family. Heck, I'd take paid paternity leave, let alone a child care facility!


I think very few people who live outside the SF bubble understand just how daunting the prospect of family formation is. There are married couples with $200,000 household incomes who are convinced that it would be grossly irresponsible to have a baby in their economic situation.

There are married couples with $200,000 household incomes who are convinced that it would be grossly irresponsible to have a baby in their economic situation.

My relations in the Bay Area managed 3 (widely spaced) children not collaring that income until they were in the latter half of their fifties. They've lived comfortably.

Latter fifties implies, that they were at home buying age roughly 30 years ago. That implies that not only was their housing cost 75% lower, but their major wealth investment experienced an incredible 300% gain.

I'm sure London was also affordable if you got in before Hadrian. That doesn't tell us much about the conditions today.

"I think very few people who live outside the SF bubble understand just how daunting the prospect of family formation is. There are married couples with $200,000 household incomes who are convinced that it would be grossly irresponsible to have a baby in their economic situation."

At that point, I'd have to lay the blame on the couples. They can move, it's a huge country with plenty of affordable places to live. They've made a conscious choice and are living with the consequences.

Not always easy to move jobs though. Yes you could move somewhere cheaper and earn say $140K instead but is it really so easy to just find a new job like that somewhere?

"Yes you could move somewhere cheaper and earn say $140K instead but is it really so easy to just find a new job like that somewhere?"

You can quite easily raise kids on $60K a year in most of the US. Assuming their income is merit based (ie not a relative of the owner, etc), then they should be able to find some middle ground. $100K is a nice living for most Americans.

First, the vast majority of positions are filled through networking or personal contacts. Even if you're highly qualified, it's not so easy to just get hired for a high-paying jobs 1,000 miles away in a place where you don't know anyone. Second, many industries really do concentrate good jobs in a few (expensive) metros. If you work in hedge funds, it's really hard to find a jobs outside of New York. If you're a data scientist, there's not much work outside the Bay Area or Seattle. If you're a biotech researcher, good luck finding a job in Peoria.

Yes, the hedge fund associate could work for a regional bank, the data scientist could go write internal corporate payroll systems, and the biotech researcher could become a lab tech. But those are all substantial step-downs in terms of career prospects, prestige, and even job satisfaction. It's probably a step-up in terms of immediate cost-of-living adjusted income. Particularly if your consumption basket includes raising a couple of kids. However that doesn't mean it's a smart long-term move.

New York is a lot more expensive than Jacksonville. And the 25 year-old hedge fund associate probably doesn't get paid enough to make up for this. But the 45-year old hedge fund portfolio manager, definitely gets paid enough to come out ahead of the Jacksonville bank Vice President. In terms of lifetime earnings, it really does make sense to be in NYC or SF while you're first establishing your career. The problem is by the time this move pays off, you're well past prime child-bearing age.

"The problem is by the time this move pays off, you’re well past prime child-bearing age."

Sure, in other words, career oriented people sacrifice having a family in order to advance their career. That's hardly a shocking revelation.

Agree, sometimes people need to make tradeoffs between career and family. Except in this case the tradeoff is largely driven by stupid public policy. Living space in the Bay Area Is really expensive, not because of some iron law of the universe, but because land use restrictions keep supply artificially scarce.

Basically some baby boomers who bought their homes thirty years ago really don't want their property values to ever go down. Or even rise less than 10%+ a year. And local governments do their bidding. So new homes don't get built and prices skyrocket. Consequently the smartest and most ambitious millenials don't have kids. Solve for what equilibrium looks like in fifty years.

"Consequently the smartest and most ambitious millenials don’t have kids. Solve for what equilibrium looks like in fifty years."

I would argue that they aren't particularly smart if they are that short sighted. At the very least they clearly aren't evolutionarily fit.

" Except in this case the tradeoff is largely driven by stupid public policy."

100% agree, but the solution to stupid public policy is to either leave, change it or accept the consequences. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep worrying about the third group.

#5. To be fair, this book sounds horrible, and is being condemned for exactly the right reasons.

The Black Witch centers on a girl named Elloren who has been raised in a stratified society where other races (including selkies, fae, wolfmen, etc.) are considered inferior at best and enemies at worst. But when she goes off to college, she begins to question her beliefs, an ideological transformation she’s still working on when she joins with the rebellion in the last of the novel’s 600 pages. (It’s the first of a series; one hopes that Elloren will be more woke in book two.)

The hype train was derailed in mid-March, however, by Shauna Sinyard, a bookstore employee and blogger who writes primarily about YA and had a different take: “The Black Witch is the most dangerous, offensive book I have ever read,” she wrote in a nearly 9,000-word review that blasted the novel as an end-to-end mess of unadulterated bigotry. “It was ultimately written for white people. It was written for the type of white person who considers themselves to be not-racist and thinks that they deserve recognition and praise for treating POC like they are actually human.”

Sounds like a complete take-down of white-liberal-prog virtue signalling, which is what the book represents.
We need more of this sort of "book burning".

We never need any sort of book burning. Ever.

“It was ultimately written for white people. It was written for the type of white person who considers themselves to be not-racist and thinks that they deserve recognition and praise for treating POC like they are actually human.”

This sounds like someone trying to take down white-liberal-prog virtue signaling, by using stronger white-liberal-prog virtue signaling.

No, it sounds like a non-white person getting fed up that white people can't stop making everything about white people, even in books that purport to be about white people overcoming their ethnic prejudices.

I can totally sympathize with that. I'm SO tired of Hollywood films where the protagonist is a boring middle-class white person, surrounded by far more interesting non-white or non-middle-class characters.
See 'Orange is the New Black'. Piper Chapman, official representative of white liberal New York progressivism, is the least interesting person in the show. Why is she the protagonist?

Because the show is based on the memoirs of an actual white woman named Piper Kerman. And anyone who watches the show knows she hasn't been much of a protagonist for at least 3 seasons. It's an ensemble cast enterprise. OITNB doesn't really "do" protagonists at this point.

Fair enough on OITNB, but there are plenty of other examples.
I just saw Kong:Skull Island, and of course, the protagonist is a white upper-class British guy - you know he's going to live and he's going to get the girl. But he's also the most boring character in the cast - next to the white woman who is there to be the romantic interest.

It sounds like you just don't like white people very much.

I don't like the idealized virtuous white protagonists found in mainstream Hollywood movies.
Also it kind of strikes me as a way in which white people reassure themselves of their virtuousness - by making films in which they, or people like them, are the heros. Even when those films/books are about racism or prejudice - the great white savior narrative.

That said, my favorite character in Kong:Skull Island, was a white guy - just not a stereotypical hero. Instead he's a grizzled cynical war veteran played by Shea Whigham. (And yes, the film is some mindless stupid fun, but worth it for the literary references and various homages and parodies of film tropes). There's lots of white characters in film that I enjoy, just not the hero-protagonist archetype.

And yet boring (lower?) middle class Hazel clogs up these comments with hyper repetive tin eared virtue signaling. Why do you keep posting you are super boring.


Hazel's comments sound racist to me, tbh. Guess it's too hard to find fodder for virtue signalling when you judge a movie on the basis of *white* people doing things you don't like, or there being too many *white* people in the film, or when writers write about what they know (people a bit too much "like themselves"), or when writers write about what they don't know and commit "cultural appropriation". Just shut up and watch the movie, ffs. Or don't, I don't care. Just stop whining.

>See ‘Orange is the New Black’. Piper Chapman, official representative of white liberal New York progressivism, is the least interesting person in the show. Why is she the protagonist?

Probably because she's a woman, and therefore could be hired for 79 cents on the dollar.

Hey, don't blame me. That's just what Hillary kept telling me.

We need more of this sort of “book burning”.

Well Hazel is being cheeky. We don't need any sort of book burnings, but it is true that free society depends in part on human authoritarian tendencies turning in on themselves.

What I don't get is why there was not criticism of the film Zootopia for likening black people to carnivorous beasts.

"What I don’t get is why there was not criticism of the film Zootopia for likening black people to carnivorous beasts."

That's an extremely risky thing to do. Unless there's a pre-existing sense by others that the movie is doing that, congratulations, YOU'RE the one who just compared black people to carnivorous beasts.

LOL. Worse, Zootopia portrays a world in which different races/ethnicities are analogized to literally different species, and those species keep to themselves. There's no interracial rabbit-horse couples. They all live in segregated enclaves. It's horrible really.

The writers of Zootopia pulled an alt-right "fast one" and no one noticed. Well done. Same with Angry Birds, a clear analogy to open borders. Pigs=Muslims. They even have beards haha.

If only there was some way we could simply avoid reading this book.

Nope. It's Puritanical busybodying all the way. The mere existence of such a book is a violent affront.

Lets just do away with literary criticism entirely.

I think you can be critical and not join a lynch mob against the author if you dont like her work.

I agree the lynch mob stuff is awful.
I'm just saying the book sounds like crap and the critical review appears to be spot on.

There are lots of things to criticize about that book, but "it was written for white people?" So was The Sun Also Rises.

It's not that it was written for white people, it's the peculiar mix of being a book about overcoming racism that somehow fails to overcome the ethnocentric lens of the author. I could also compare it to films like 'The Last Samauri' - a film about the end of the Japanese Samauri culture - which manages to cast a white male in the lead. Somehow even things that aren't supposed to be about white people, end up being about white people. Because apparently the film industry thinks that white people won't be able to identify with a non-white protagonist or something.

Bollywood seems beset with the reverse notion.

Thats quite the critique from someone who admits to not having read the book.

Admittedly, I'm assuming that the article and review describe the book accurately.

Why would you make that assumption, given that the quoted racism is taken out of the context of it being a bad statement. The author of this criticism knowingly took that statement out of context to bolster a dishonest case that the author is racist. I wouldn't trust the criticism to be honest.

Hazel seems to think that tendencies that are human wide afflict only white people. Almost like-get this- he's obsessed with being white just in a super narcissistic way. Check out black twitter some time pas d'honkies like the french say.

In a given year, I'd support the burning of 99% of the books, so we're on the same page there.

I too think the book sounds awful. But it is because it sounds like it pushes the destructive New Left narrative whereby everything bad that happens to colored people is the fault of white people.

So burn away, by all means! The more you signal that well-intentioned white people will be forever tainted by guilt and wrongthink in your movement, the more they will come to realize how flawed its premises are, and the more they will turn their backs on it. Indeed, if the ideological control becomes too rigid and the stance becomes too extreme, it is likely that many colored people will also turn away from the movement.

I'm surprised to read this from you Hazel.

It sounds like you dislike this book for some potentially well thought out reasons. Fine. But this social-mob-justice isn't the solution, and you seem to be allowing it because in this case it supports your preferences.

I mean, haven't you ever played Starcraft? What happened when the Protoss thought they could control the zerg? Or in Halo? When the Covenant thought they could control the flood? I bet you've never even played Starcraft or Halo, have you? Admit it.

"I mean, haven’t you ever played Starcraft? What happened when the Protoss thought they could control the zerg?"

Hmmm, well the Space Elves were over run and nearly destroyed until the Humans came in and saved the day.

Wasn't the movie Avatar basically Night Elves vs. Space Marines?

Yes, but with really stupid Space Marines.

How dumb do you have to be, to decide to fly through a forest with a shuttle that could easily have flown at 50,000 feet.

Actually Starcraft is my favorite game of all time.
Never played Halo though. Not really into FPS.

#6 was very good.


Yeah, I agree.
I personally don't think women are less apt to be capable of programming. But some sort of self-selection, whatever the reasons, is probably at least part of the cause. I think girls are more susceptible to the idea that computer programming is un-cool, nerd stuff. (Mean Girls: "You can't join the Mathletes, that's social suicide.")

Very true, which is why programs that attempt to un-bro and un-nerd it are good things, and valorizing "truth tellers" who insist it's a guy thing (even ones that aren't dicks about it) is maybe counterproductive. That guy's memo was mostly correct, but also banal. We already know on average women don't pursue those jobs as much as men, so let's find ways to make it more appealing to them. Once there are more women on board, it will be less intimidating to the next set of women, creating a virtuous circle. And those nerds could use a few more nerdy women around as Douthat suggests.

"That guy’s memo was mostly correct, but also banal"

Banal means obvious and boring. That memo was demonstrably anything but, considering the fallout.

Tech nerds aren't bros. Bros put tech nerds in headlocks. And I'm curious why so many other fields once forbidden to women are now at parity or dominated by them (psychologists, veterinarians), all without a protracted, concerted effort to un-bro them. How were they successful at this? Why is tech so much more difficult?

Why? Why is it efficient to try to sort people away from their inclinations and talents? And come on, drop the pretense: we all remember high school. The girls naturally gifted at math are few. I was not one of them, though an award I got said otherwise, and made me realize just how shallow the girl talent pool was at my school.*

Bringing it back to kiddie books - idiot that I am I read an idiot article from the kiddie book world lamenting, with the support of the commenter chorus, that heavy machinery in tot books had traditionally been more apt to be drawn with masculine features than female ["Dick the Dump Truck," etc] and celebrating that we were finally getting backhoes wearing mascara and bows. I drive past construction sites in the 100-degree heat every day in my boomtown, and I rarely see a woman (actually, I've never seen one, but I thought you'd be more accepting of "rarely).

So why do we particularly need to give women credit for very hard work that men do? Why is that creditable? Shouldn't we be grateful to the people who actually do it? Do we like that in our personal lives, to see credit for a job wrongly directed? Of course the people discussing it had never so much as mowed a lawn ...

*Eventually I did come to love reading about math, in a dilettante-ish way. Which leads me to the conclusion that beyond the basics, a history of math, an appreciation of it much as they used to do with literature, could potentially be a better use of time than the obligatory short wade into trig/calculus.

Meh. I was beating all of the guys in my school in math contests all the way from the 8th through 12th grades. People's natural inclinations vary a lot.

"Meh. I was beating all of the guys in my school in math contests all the way from the 8th through 12th grades. People’s natural inclinations vary a lot."

Then you should understand the difference between anecdotal data and statistical data.

I'm not being specious here, I'm being serious. There are real differences in the sexes and those can and do affect the propensity to succeed in a given task. I agree that it doesn't preclude any specific individual from performing well. However, the idea that there has to parity in every profession and if we don't have parity then the government must step in and force the issue, is absurd.

I will admit that in my high school the advanced math classes (and math heavy science classes) come closest to gender parity. Instead of having 4 girls for every guy, those classes maybe had 3 girls for every 2 boys.

How does the overall academic performance gap between American girls and boys today factor into this? I assume that gender ratios get skewed in all sorts of weird ways by the time students get to college, due to the influx of foreign students.

"@JWatts How does the overall academic performance gap between American girls and boys today factor into this? I assume that gender ratios get skewed in all sorts of weird ways by the time students get to college, due to the influx of foreign students."

Potential being different than achievement.


Bro is a racial and sexist slur that refers to white men.

The memo author brought up that male IQ varies more, resulting in, for instance, something like a 7 male: 1 female ratio at IQ levels >140. If that is the case, why would we expect to find anything but a disproportionately male workforce at jobs which require high IQ? If IQ distributions are identical between men and women, provide some proof.

I generally agree. Moreover, this is a testable theory. I can offer one data point: percentages of women in programming are a lot higher in India than in the US. India is visibly a more patriarchal country than the US, so the discrepancy cannot be explained purely by discrimination. On the other hand, geeks are not denigrated in Indian culture the way they seem to be in America.

But we need more data points. It seems that many other developed countries have similar gender distributions in programming jobs as the US does, but I have no idea if their cultures are similarly anti-geek.

The disreputable Mr. Sailer has occasionally reported data the burden of which is that computer programming was less predominantly male 40 years ago than it is today. His hypothesis is that mainframe programming was more congruent with what women like to experience in their daily life and that the World that Woz Begot is unstructured in ways most women find unappealing. (Not my trade, to be sure).

One thing I've seen where I've worked is that the IT service is the only pool of tradesmen where there are any women at all. Compare the IT service where you work to the B & G crew.

Any sort of technical work is predominantly male. This is true of all types and all skill levels. Don't think it has much to do with Mean Girls. What Fran Leibowitz said a generation ago applies, "I don't care how many strikeepisodes</strike issues of Phil Donohue Ms. they watch read, men women simply will not do these jobs."

@Art Deco are you always this obtuse?

Iran? I think the Islamic oil states are a strange example to make the point I think you're implying. The "oil curse" tends to lead to low investment in education and human capital, particularly for men. At the same time, paradoxically, the lower status of women in those societies might give women relatively more incentive to pursue education (i.e., the return on investment is relatively better for women). Whatever's going on, it's not something any Western country would want to imitate.

Quote from the article (which I suspect you did not read):

“Before, there were few, but now there are many tech journalists who are women. Four of my colleagues are female. It’s my honor to work with them.”

Entrepreneur Hamidreza Ahmadi says women are still under-represented in tech and entrepreneurship, a problem not unique to Iran. Nor, he says, deliberate.

“There isn’t any discrimination against women, but equally, there is indifference about their advancement. We should actively encourage female participation in the workforce and ensure we have a certain percentage of women board members. I think we'll see these changes very soon.”

In fact, Ahmadi believes with so many women graduating with second and third graduate degrees, ... [ed: this sort of overeducation for women is consistent with the model I suggested, i.e., they have to get three master's degrees to get anywhere, and it's probably evidence of their many social disadvantages.]

@Art Deco are you always this obtuse?

Obtuse or not, I can actually read the Digest of Education Statistics and the BLS occupational census, tasks which appear to defeat you.

Agreed. He is certainly spot on that Google must navigate geek bro-culture and San Francisco's endlessly innovative sexual politics as well.

(I just learned of a friend of a friend, who I would call a girl, who lives in the Bay Area and prefers no gender. That is, "it or they." If it works for her, I guess I should say "more power to it" but that really seems harsh ... such are our times.)

I find it wierd that geeks have a bro-culture actually. Maybe geek culture changed over the last 20 years since I was in high school, but geeks are supposed to be nerds, they aren't supposed to have many friends, much less "bros".

I think it is new. I really think that in the 1980s there was less surprise at women working in and doing well in technical fields. Perhaps it's not coincidental that gamers were the flash point. Maybe modern tech took on gaming culture.

It's not a bro culture in my opinion, fwiw. All the people I know who work for the big tech companies are .... well we used to call them nerds. The "bros" I know all work for hedge funds or PE. The wannabe "bros" work for the big consulting companies. YMMV.

Now the term nerd has warped into something completely different. But I digress. These are good guys, but socially awkward in that critical period of adolescence. Think Scott Aaronson. They're socially awkward even if they're pulling down 175 a year. Which to me destroys the whole concept of privilege. Sure, these smart nerds are making money because their skills are in demand. Great for them, right ?

Apparently not. They are still being bullied by the exact same people that were bullying them at 15. And if social power/oppression/privilege isn't defined by which opinions cause one to lose one's lucrative employment then the phrase means nothing. So qui opresso?

This is closer to the truth. A lot of finance people are nerds too though, and a handful of engineers are bros. Pretty small percentages in both cases, actually.

So whence comes the idea that Silicon Valley has a bro culture?
I think some reviewers mentioned this with regards to 'The Social Network' too. That it wierdly portrayed Silicon Valley as a place where geeks snorted coke off of the bellies of hot girls. Which is more like Hollywood than Silicon Valley.

On the other hand, there's obviously at least a subset of the male-dominated gamer culture which is unfriendly to women, add in men's right's, PUA, and Sad Puppies sci fi people. I assume these people mostly joined the alt-right and voted for Trump last election, because that's what they would do. But I'm not sure if this group really overlaps with Silicon Valley nerds. Then again, a sexually frustrated nerd who isn't getting laid might be attracted to PUA or "red pill"
online communities, so I don't know.

Back in my day, most of the nerds were pretty inclusive, of both gender and sexual identity. They had to be because the only people who would be friends with them were other socially excluded wierdos.

Work venues demographically dominated by men have one set of pathologies. Those dominated by women have a different set of pathologies. There are two imperatives: that the law and moral norms are respected and that a satisfactory level of productivity is maintained. Beyond that, if you don't like the 'culture' of your workplace and it's a deal-breaker issue for you, go work somewhere else.

Funnily enough, geek, bro, and nerd are great examples of actual stereotypical thinking.

People are missing the point of the second link. It's about expanding the limits on who can administer certain procedures (e.g. dentistry) and how that can benefit the general population.

Pharmacists are able to administer flu shots in all 50 states; we should let them do more - like administer pediatric immunizations. Do point of care testing. Do diabetes education and provide other health care services.


"Could you write a movie about someone like Mike Pence?
When you see Mike Pence, you think there’s a lot going on inside that guy. At least I do. But the problem is that Mike Pence will not tell you that. Lena [Dunham]“I was just blown away,” Apatow once said of Dunham’s pre-Girls independent film Tiny Furniture. “I thought ‘this is a young person making a James Brooks movie.’” He then sent Dunham an email, which she thought was a prank: “If you ever want someone to give you a lot of money and screw everything up, we should talk.” Apatow became executive producer for Girls, which was already in development for HBO. will. There’s an openness and an honesty to what she does. She’s saying, I have these values, but I’m also a human being, and I make mistakes, and sometimes I’m crazy and selfish and other times I’m loving and supportive. And that’s why there’s no incredible, hysterically funny show about conservatives, because they’re too concerned about trying to present themselves as correct. They’re all going, I’m not neurotic. I’m not a disaster in any way. They don’t admit how lost they are. There’s something dishonest to me about that; it’s living a lie. So for someone to say that Girls is a critique of liberalism because the characters’ lives might be disasters? No, those characters’ lives are disasters because they’re human."

Maybe they arent dishonest, maybe they just arent narcissists who feel the need to tell everyone everything about themselves. Its ok to not talk about yourself once in a while.

The extremely weird thing is that even if you aren't conservative or don't like them, it's extremely easy to lampoon people who are "too concerned about trying to present themselves as correct" via a comedy of manners, and some of those are the most hilarious things ever made for TV or the movies. So I have to question what Apatow is saying.

+1, a lot of British humor is in this vein

The thing that is weird to me is that people like Apatow imagine themselves to be so understanding of differences in culture, and yet if your cultural values are even slightly different then theirs, they think you the villain. Not everyone thinks that being publicly neurotic is a virtue, whats so wrong about that? Cant people have a private life without 'living a lie'?

#6: You can tell from one paragraph he reads the Unz Review; his last paragraph suggests he's been bickering with his wife.

No, you can tell he's a kind and supportive husband by his manful plugging of her cat book atop his twitter feed all year!

RE the "book burnings", I now open any disagreement by accusing the person of racism. It automatically and irrevocably gives me the high ground, and if they argue they're not racist, that just proves they're racist. Seriously, why is this the rational choice, and the one that everyone is eventually going to use?

'It automatically and irrevocably gives me the high ground'

No it doesn't.

'if they argue they’re not racist, that just proves they’re racist'

No it doesn't.

'and the one that everyone is eventually going to use'

No they aren't.

Of course I'm being sarcastic and I'm glad you don't think so - but there are many people who behave as if they do believe this. I'm happy to use this against them.

#5. Until I googled it, I thought there was a book that could trigger erectile dysfunction survivors.

#5 - Today's racists, book burners, and intolerant haters do not look or act like the racists, book burners, and haters of the past. If you're on the lookout for tomorrow's Hitler or klan, you'll fail if you're looking for swastikas and white hoods.

3. "I want people who actually evolve." Hilarious!

5. Call-out culture is ruining rational discourse. We have become a mob at an execution reveling at toppling heads.

6. Mr. Damore should not have been fired for his comments. I say this as a female. He should have had to debate his memo with his coworkers. Instead of slinking off to the alt-right world.

Diversity programs don't automatically make us more diverse, just as the Civil War didn't change southern opinions about African Americans. If we don't deal directly with these issues they continue to fester. Now he is a martyr for all those who feel disenfranchised by the feminization of everything. Ugh.

He should have had to debate his memo with his coworkers

What, when they know he's right?

"I say this as a female. He should have had to debate his memo with his coworkers."

I'm pretty sure, that was his intent from the beginning. The document was originally posted on Google's internal social network and in it he specifically invites further discussion. And the debate is, indeed, happening -- just not inside Google.

#1 seems like a very shallow analysis. Okay, you found one cluster. The question in my mind is, are there others? Essentially, I want to know if different groups of medical schools train students substantially differently. If they do, than this difference may reflect nothing more than a difference of culture among physicians (the kind that are common among technical experts in any field). The assumption that quality of education has anything to do with it--which is the implication of the title--is, to say the least, naïve.

Comments for this post are closed