The 2017 MLB.TV subscription details have been announced today. Once again we can sign up to watch and listen to every MLB game across the season, alongside Spring.

• Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald.
• A bit different from most mSpy reviews out there, I actually have this spy software on my cell phone. Find out what makes this one stand out from the rest.

The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond. Lee Jussim. Professor Lee Jussim. Lee Jussim is a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University and was a Fellow and Consulting Scholar at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University (2. His most recent book, Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self- Fulfilling Prophecy, ties that work together to demonstrate that people are far more reasonable and rational, and their judgments are typically far more accurate than social psychological conventional wisdom usually acknowledges. You can follow the twitter account: @Psych.

Rabble for updates from his lab. The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that: 1.

Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences.

I cannot speak to the atmosphere at Google, but: 1. Give that the author gets everything else right, I am pretty confident he is right about that too; 2.

It is a painfully familiar atmosphere, one that is a lot like academia. Here, I mainly focus on the reactions to the essay on the Gizmodo site, which indirectly and ironically validate much of the author’s analysis.

Very few of the comments actually engage the arguments; they just fling insults and slurs. In 1. 96. 0, the most common slurs were insulting labels for demographic groups.

In 2. 01. 7, the most common slurs involve labelling anyone who you disagree with on issues such as affirmative action, diversity, gaps, and inequality as a racist, sexist, homophobe, or bigot. This starts with the title of the Gizmodo post, which labels the article as a “screed,” which dictionary.

This essay may not get everything 1. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self- appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people.

To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well- reasoned than nearly all of the comments.

If I had one recommendation, it would be this: That, before commenting on these issues, Google executives read two books: John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. Mill: “. David P Schmitt. Professor David P Schmitt. Since earning his bachelor’s degree and Ph. D. Schmitt has authored or co- authored more than 5. He is founder and director of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP).

The ISDP is among the largest- ever cross- cultural research teams, involving over 2. Chair of the Psychology Department at Bradley University from 2. He blogs at Psychology Today and you can follow him on Twitter @Psycho. Schmitt. A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e. Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided.

Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain. I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong.

For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self- reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence,see here.)But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.

So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too.

Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors. As to sex differences in mate preferences and status- seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures (for a review, see here). Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size (see here), but most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway (see here.)Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do. As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non- expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio- structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally- embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace?

At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too. Geoffrey Miller. Associate Professor Geoffrey Miller. Geoffrey Miller is an evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico. He is the author of The Mating Mind, Mating Intelligence, Spent, and What Women Want. His research has focused on sexual selection, mate choice, human sexuality, intelligence, humor, creativity, personality traits, evolutionary psychopathology, behavior genetics, consumer behavior, evolutionary aesthetics, research ethics, virtue signaling, and Effective Altruism.

He did a podcast called The Mating Grounds; you can follow him on Twitter @primalpoly. An anonymous male software engineer recently distributed a memo titled .

Within hours, this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence- based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research. I Want To Watch The Full Movie Of I Daniel Blake (2017).

NZ Herald Homepage - New Zealand's latest news, business, sport and entertainment. Your news how you want it. On the go and no time to finish that story right now? Your News is the place for you to save content to read later from any device. Register with us and content you save will appear here so you can access them to read later.