Skip to main content

Google and the Sexist Letter

I’ve been reading about that fellow, James Damore, at Google now fired for his use of sexist language about the skills of computer coding.  He does make some points of interest.

The fact is that women seem to prefer working in more humanist environments – even if very scientific.  Men seem more willing to work in the highly sterile world of pure coding.   Seems to be a fact - as explained to me by a woman electrical engineer.  She ran a summer school workshop for HS students.  One year, building an amplifier was the project.  The girls were not as enthusiastic as the boys.  Next year, the project was a heart monitor – similar electronics.  The girls loved it. She learned a lasting lesson.

Moreover, most women and men cannot endure the world of pure coding.  It is a harsh environment.  Industry should be happy to discover these people wherever they can find them.  Sex, race, or even religion have nothing to do with it!  Expert coding is a very rare skill.  In many cases, it is not one that leads to any higher calling.  For example, when I was a student and learning to code, there was among us a very tall, very thin, fellow that could code like gangbusters.  But he was not social, having little sense of humor, not very interesting, and in fact kind of boring.

My advice to advisors.  Assume not just anybody can be trained to expertise at coding skills.  Some of the smartest people I know cannot code worth a nickel!  I can code somewhat, but for me it has always been a struggle; I am too darn slow to make a living at it.  I can and have designed projects and managed them, but thankfully did not have to write the code.

Coding requires a special type of thinking that proceeds in what I call micro-steps. Most of us think in macro-steps of ordinary social thinking, making it difficult to penetrate or break a thought into a thousand pieces of actual code.  Real coders can.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view