I was outraged. Not because he stated men and women are not identical, but by his fundamental dishonesty.
In a honest discussion, I would agree that if the world was fair, there probably would be more men than women in tech jobs - because from culture, men are just more interested in those jobs. So of course, in such a world, it would be normal and fair if more men than women are hired. And any "diversity" order might actually do harm in such a world.
And then, he makes his far-reaching demands based on this idealised scenario.
The point is, it's obvious we don't live in such a fair world, but one where women are kept from succeeding by sexism. By not hiring them, or not promoting them, or not treating them fairly otherwise, not because they as individuals have flaws, but just because they are women. In this situation, noticing this and attempting to neutralise it is actually beneficial.
But Damore just made his demands ignoring this obvious evidence, and since there's no way he never heard about women and also men reporting about this sexism, he is basing his demands on his assumption they are liars, or blind. And that's why I'm outraged, and why I think it was fair that he was fired.
The flaws in his reasoning are so great that they completely invalidate his conclusions. Other examples would be: "Let's use nukes to accelerate a manned expedition to Mars. They'd get there really fast." or "Politicians just promise the moon from the sky, and may be unprepared. Let's have a king instead, he'd get prepared for his job during all of his life."
And so on. Demanding small points speaking for one's idea must be considered while the much larger flaws should be ignored is unreasonable to begin with.
Hi Sabine, I am a frequent but mostly lurking reader, this is probably my first comment.
Thanks for this thoughtful and balanced post.
To me, what's really outrageous here is that a person (perhaps one with a family to feed) has been fired for expressing an opinion in a calm and measured way.
The issue is not whether Damore is right or wrong. I guess he must be half right and half wrong, like it's usually the case. The issue is that thought policing and violent (yes, violent) repression of (calm and measured) dissent is definitely wrong. W R O N G.
Honestly, I don't think he was fired because of the content of his memo. He was fired because he made it way too public. There might be some true in some of his points, but there's also a lot of racism, sexism and nasty things in general. Once that's public, the company have two options: keep him as an employee and send a potential message of approval for that type of ideology; or fire the employee to prove zero tolerance for sexism/racism/xenophobia in all shapes and form.
And this is exactly why HR departments ask you to go to them with these kind of issues. He put the company in an impossible situation and he got the only possible outcome. If he had handled this through the appropriate channels, I'm sure he'd still be a Google employee.
TL;DR: He wasn't fired because of the content of his memo, he was fired because he was an idiot when he decided to send it to everyone.
By the way, in science and technology, conservatism is a minority ideology (he says so himself in his letter). How would he feel if we start saying that conservative people aren't apt for science and technology? That if he doesn't feel welcome he should find a different profession? It's ironic he complains about it even though, in a way, he understands the struggle.
I especially got the argument for affirmative action. I think that a too homogeneous culture can become a dangerous (self-selecting) goldfish bowl very quickly.
There are many tragic (and heroic) stories of great woman scientists of the past, but once the shackles are off, I think a sort of self-balancing may lead to the appropriate ratios being found.
Thank you for your balanced opinion about this complex problem. I basically agree with everything, and I'm not sure I would have been able to formulate it as clearly as you did.
I think Sundar Pichai explained the firing perfectly:
Quote:
This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.
Dear Dr B "I used to think this backlash has to be avoided at all costs, hence was firmly against affirmative action. But during my years in Sweden, I saw that it does work – at least for women – and also why: It makes their presence unremarkable."
I think this is the source of much of the opposition to affirmative action: It works. Which means that those who used to get into college or the good jobs easily will now face competition. So they complain.
A large corporation is not, repeat NOT, a university or other academic setting. This is a business setting and the culture and goals are very different.
The diversity programs at a large corporation are not meant to bring men and women or blacks and whites employees into numerical proportions with the surrounding population. It is meant to enable the corporation to attract and retain from the widest pool of talent that is available.
Among other things the corporation wants these employees to be productive - and so has to give them good working conditions. Google has done an extraordinary amount of research on what makes teams productive. Look up what they found, it is educative.
Another anecdote - and this is in this time, not years ago. Our leadership of a very large technological firm told us that just doing the following made a big difference. When there is a position - internal or external hire, or a slot for a promotion - Human Resources picks five candidates and sends to the hiring manager. Without any instructions to the hiring manager, Human Resources was told that if there is a qualified woman, include her as one of the five. This all unbeknownst to the manager who is going to actually make the hiring decision. Think about why this would make a difference.
Further, if Damore had a clue of understanding, he would know how to bring his legitimate concerns up without creating a hostile workplace for the women employees of Google.
And if Google is like other corporations, each employee undergoes 10-20 hours each year being educated on the conduct expected within the corporation, ethics and how to deal with various situations, what is unacceptable behavior, and so on. I don't think Damore has any excuse that he did not know how he should behave.
Google and Sundar Pichai did absolutely the right thing. And if you don't like it, you can sell your Google stock, if you have any.
Maybe here's a simple way to understand what happened at Google. Bee, you've face criticism from say, Tim Maudlin; and you've faced criticism from Lubos Motl. I think you clearly understand the difference. Damore crossed the line from being Maudlin-like to being Motl-like. That is not tolerable.
@Giulio Prisco: It wasn't thought policing. Damore didn't just make an unpopular statement about evolution, or global warming, or even whether Trump was the greatest president of all time. He asserted in no unclear terms that female employees had an unfair advantage at Google and that anyone who thinks otherwise has to be ideologically blinded.
If Damore believed in the bell curve he used that there is a significant overlap in populations he would have come to the conclusion that women were about as trustworthy as men, and he'd have paid attention to their experiences. He chose not to do that, he only used that bell curve to assert men were superior to women in tech jobs - the old "I'm not a sexist but..." excuse.
There was no attempt at an open discussion - if he wanted one, he could have just asked female employees about their experiences about the hiring or promotion process and how it might be made fairer. He probably would have found someone like Sabine who would point out where his reasoning is good and where it's faulty. And if he took such an approach, it wouldn't be seen as accusing all female Google employees - which is the reason he was fired.
I cannot read most of the papers re: gender differences you linked to, but as far as I remember, most differences between men and women come in at less than one sigma, is that true for those also?
Also, you say that affirmative action leads to “every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job”. That is true, but the coorporate (and other) biases that lead to hiring of white cis christian (and whatever else you want) men do the same thing, only not that obvious, by recognizing fewer skills on everyone who does not resemble the predominant group of people already present. Thus, the biaes tend to not create meritocracies, but to mirrortocracies.
I understand that Google is a company and not a university. I also understand that given the publicity it would have created an uproar had they not quickly gotten rid of the guy. I still think it's a mistake though.
The reason is that I think his opinions are quite widely spread and Google is, company or not, a nerd's place. The uproar you'd have heard would have come from a small but loud group of people. And that, I think, is a very general problem which we have seen abundantly on social media in the last years. We give disproportional relevance to opinions a lot of people don't share because of manufactured outrage and because too many of us remain silent. Google could have, but didn't, make a case that it's possible to calmly discuss the matter. They didn't.
Frankly, it makes me very pessimistic about what's to come.
The common standard for statistical significance in sociology and psychology is a p-value of .05 which is something like 2 sigma I think. But, yeah, this isn't particle physics.
10:07 AM, August 09, 2017
[Image]
Chairs. [Image: Verco]
That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? Well, that was a pretty dumb thing to write. But not because it’s wrong. Dumb is that Damore thought he could have a reasoned discussion about this. In the USA, out of all places.
Damore’s strikes me as a pamphlet produced by a well-meaning, but also utterly clueless, young white man. He didn’t deserve to get fired for this. He deserved maybe a slap on the too-quickly typing fingers. But in his world, asking for discussion is apparently enough to get fired.
I don’t normally write about the underrepresentation of women in science. Reason is I don’t feel fit to represent the underrepresented. I just can’t seem to appropriately suffer in my male-dominated environment. To the extent that one can trust online personality tests, I’m an awkwardly untypical female. It’s probably unsurprising I ended up in theoretical physics.
There is also a more sinister reason I keep my mouth shut. It’s that I’m afraid of losing what little support I have among the women in science when I fall into their back.
I’ve lived in the USA for three years and for three more years in Canada. On several occasions during these years, I’ve been told that my views about women in science are “hardcore,” “controversial,” or “provocative.” Why? Because I stated the obvious: Women are different from men. On that account, I’m totally with Damore. A male-female ratio close to one is not what we should expect in all professions – and not what we should aim at either.
But the longer I keep my mouth shut, the more I think my silence is a mistake. Because it means leaving the discussion – and with it, power – to those who shout the loudest. Like CNBC. Which wants you to be “shocked” by Damore’s memo in a rather transparent attempt to produce outrage and draw clicks. Are you outraged yet?
Increasingly, media-storms like this make me worry about the impression scientists give to the coming generation. Give to kids like Damore. I’m afraid they think we’re all idiots because the saner of us don’t speak up. And when the kids think they’re oh-so-smart, they’ll produce pamphlets to reinvent the wheel.
I’m neither a sociologist nor psychologist, but my understanding of the literature is that these are uncontroversial findings. And not new either. Women are different from men, both by nature and by nuture, though it remains controversial just what is nurture and what is nature. But the cause is besides the point for the question of occupation: Women are different in ways that plausibly affect their choice of profession.
No, the problem with Damore’s argument isn’t the starting point, the problem is the conclusions that he jumps to.
To begin with, even I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. It’s either serving people directly, or analyzing people-data, or imagining the people-future. If you want to spend your life with things and ideas rather than people, then go into engineering or physics, but not into software-development.
That coding actually requires “female” skills was spelled out clearly by Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee. But since I care more about physics than software-development, let me leave this aside.
The bigger mistake in Damore’s memo is one I see frequently: Assuming that job skills and performance can be deduced from differences among demographic groups. This just isn’t so. I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary.
I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled. That’s the bias he thinks he doesn’t have. And, yeah, I’m likewise biased in favor of women. Guess that makes us even then.
The biggest problem with Damore’s memo however is that he doesn’t understand what makes a company successful. If a significant fraction of employees think that diversity is important, then it is important. No further justification is needed for this.
Yes, you can argue that increasing diversity may not improve productivity. The data situation on this is murky, to say the least. There’s some story about female CEOs in Sweden that supposedly shows something – but I want to see better statistics before I buy that. And in any case, the USA isn’t Sweden. More importantly, productivity hinges on employees’ well-being. If a diverse workplace is something they value, then that’s something to strive for, period.
What Damore seems to have aimed at, however, was merely to discuss the best way to deal with the current lack of diversity. Biases and unequal opportunities are real. (If you doubt that, you are a problem and should do some reading.) This means that the current representation of women, underprivileged and disabled people, and other minorities, is smaller than it would be in that ideal world which we don’t live in. So what to do about it?
One way to deal with the situation is to wait until the world catches up. Educate people about bias, work to remove obstacles to education, change societal gender images. This works – but it works very slowly.
Worse, one of the biggest obstacles that minorities face is a chicken-and-egg problem that time alone doesn’t cure. People avoid professions in which there are few people like them. This is a hurdle which affirmative action can remove, fast and efficiently.
But there’s a price to pay for preferably recruiting the presently underrepresented. Which is that people supported by diversity efforts face a new prejudice: They weren’t hired because they’re skilled. They were hired because of some diversity policy!
I used to think this backlash has to be avoided at all costs, hence was firmly against affirmative action. But during my years in Sweden, I saw that it does work – at least for women – and also why: It makes their presence unremarkable.
In most of the European North, a woman in a leading position in politics or industry is now commonplace. It’s nothing to stare at and nothing to talk about. And once it’s commonplace, people stop paying attention to a candidate’s gender, which in return reduces bias.
I don’t know, though, if this would also work in science which requires an entirely different skill-set. And social science is messy – it’s hard to tell how much of the success in Northern Europe is due to national culture. Hence, my attitude towards affirmative action remains conflicted.
And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data. Is diversity important enough for you to temporarily tolerate an increased risk of not hiring the most qualified person? That’s the trade-off nobody seems willing to spell out.
I also have to spell out that I am writing this as a European who now works in Europe again. For me, the most relevant contribution to equal opportunity is affordable higher education and health insurance, as well as governmentally paid maternity and parental leave. Without that, socially disadvantaged groups remain underrepresented, and companies continue to fear for revenue when hiring women in their fertile age. That, in all fairness, is an American problem not even Google can solve.
But one also doesn’t solve a problem by yelling “harassment” each time someone asks to discuss whether a diversity effort is indeed effective. I know from my own experience, and a poll conducted at Google confirms, that Damore’s skepticism about current practices is widespread.
It’s something we should discuss. It’s something Google should discuss. Because, for better or worse, this case has attracted much attention. Google’s handling of the situation will set an example for others.
Damore was fired, basically, for making a well-meant, if amateurish, attempt at institutional design, based on woefully incomplete information he picked from published research studies. But however imperfect his attempt, he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own. And what example does that set?
posted by Sabine Hossenfelder at 5:32 AM on Aug 9, 2017
"Outraged about the Google diversity memo? I want you to think about it."
15 Comments -
Well meaning is questionable.
5:53 AM, August 09, 2017
I was outraged. Not because he stated men and women are not identical, but by his fundamental dishonesty.
In a honest discussion, I would agree that if the world was fair, there probably would be more men than women in tech jobs - because from culture, men are just more interested in those jobs. So of course, in such a world, it would be normal and fair if more men than women are hired. And any "diversity" order might actually do harm in such a world.
And then, he makes his far-reaching demands based on this idealised scenario.
The point is, it's obvious we don't live in such a fair world, but one where women are kept from succeeding by sexism. By not hiring them, or not promoting them, or not treating them fairly otherwise, not because they as individuals have flaws, but just because they are women. In this situation, noticing this and attempting to neutralise it is actually beneficial.
But Damore just made his demands ignoring this obvious evidence, and since there's no way he never heard about women and also men reporting about this sexism, he is basing his demands on his assumption they are liars, or blind. And that's why I'm outraged, and why I think it was fair that he was fired.
The flaws in his reasoning are so great that they completely invalidate his conclusions. Other examples would be: "Let's use nukes to accelerate a manned expedition to Mars. They'd get there really fast." or "Politicians just promise the moon from the sky, and may be unprepared. Let's have a king instead, he'd get prepared for his job during all of his life."
And so on. Demanding small points speaking for one's idea must be considered while the much larger flaws should be ignored is unreasonable to begin with.
6:12 AM, August 09, 2017
Hi Sabine, I am a frequent but mostly lurking reader, this is probably my first comment.
Thanks for this thoughtful and balanced post.
To me, what's really outrageous here is that a person (perhaps one with a family to feed) has been fired for expressing an opinion in a calm and measured way.
The issue is not whether Damore is right or wrong. I guess he must be half right and half wrong, like it's usually the case. The issue is that thought policing and violent (yes, violent) repression of (calm and measured) dissent is definitely wrong. W R O N G.
6:14 AM, August 09, 2017
Thank you for a non polarised look at the problem.
6:19 AM, August 09, 2017
Honestly, I don't think he was fired because of the content of his memo. He was fired because he made it way too public. There might be some true in some of his points, but there's also a lot of racism, sexism and nasty things in general. Once that's public, the company have two options: keep him as an employee and send a potential message of approval for that type of ideology; or fire the employee to prove zero tolerance for sexism/racism/xenophobia in all shapes and form.
And this is exactly why HR departments ask you to go to them with these kind of issues. He put the company in an impossible situation and he got the only possible outcome. If he had handled this through the appropriate channels, I'm sure he'd still be a Google employee.
TL;DR: He wasn't fired because of the content of his memo, he was fired because he was an idiot when he decided to send it to everyone.
By the way, in science and technology, conservatism is a minority ideology (he says so himself in his letter). How would he feel if we start saying that conservative people aren't apt for science and technology? That if he doesn't feel welcome he should find a different profession? It's ironic he complains about it even though, in a way, he understands the struggle.
6:40 AM, August 09, 2017
Great points here. A lot to think about!
I especially got the argument for affirmative action. I think that a too homogeneous culture can become a dangerous (self-selecting) goldfish bowl very quickly.
There are many tragic (and heroic) stories of great woman scientists of the past, but once the shackles are off, I think a sort of self-balancing may lead to the appropriate ratios being found.
6:48 AM, August 09, 2017
Thank you for your balanced opinion about this complex problem. I basically agree with everything, and I'm not sure I would have been able to formulate it as clearly as you did.
6:48 AM, August 09, 2017
I think Sundar Pichai explained the firing perfectly:
Quote:
This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.
End quote.
6:58 AM, August 09, 2017
Dear Dr B
"I used to think this backlash has to be avoided at all costs, hence was firmly against affirmative action. But during my years in Sweden, I saw that it does work – at least for women – and also why: It makes their presence unremarkable."
I think this is the source of much of the opposition to affirmative action: It works. Which means that those who used to get into college or the good jobs easily will now face competition. So they complain.
7:12 AM, August 09, 2017
Dear Bee,
A large corporation is not, repeat NOT, a university or other academic setting. This is a business setting and the culture and goals are very different.
The diversity programs at a large corporation are not meant to bring men and women or blacks and whites employees into numerical proportions with the surrounding population. It is meant to enable the corporation to attract and retain from the widest pool of talent that is available.
Among other things the corporation wants these employees to be productive - and so has to give them good working conditions. Google has done an extraordinary amount of research on what makes teams productive. Look up what they found, it is educative.
Another anecdote - and this is in this time, not years ago. Our leadership of a very large technological firm told us that just doing the following made a big difference. When there is a position - internal or external hire, or a slot for a promotion - Human Resources picks five candidates and sends to the hiring manager. Without any instructions to the hiring manager, Human Resources was told that if there is a qualified woman, include her as one of the five. This all unbeknownst to the manager who is going to actually make the hiring decision. Think about why this would make a difference.
Further, if Damore had a clue of understanding, he would know how to bring his legitimate concerns up without creating a hostile workplace for the women employees of Google.
And if Google is like other corporations, each employee undergoes 10-20 hours each year being educated on the conduct expected within the corporation, ethics and how to deal with various situations, what is unacceptable behavior, and so on. I don't think Damore has any excuse that he did not know how he should behave.
Google and Sundar Pichai did absolutely the right thing. And if you don't like it, you can sell your Google stock, if you have any.
Best wishes,
-Arun
7:14 AM, August 09, 2017
Maybe here's a simple way to understand what happened at Google.
Bee, you've face criticism from say, Tim Maudlin; and you've faced criticism from Lubos Motl. I think you clearly understand the difference. Damore crossed the line from being Maudlin-like to being Motl-like. That is not tolerable.
7:49 AM, August 09, 2017
@Giulio Prisco:
It wasn't thought policing. Damore didn't just make an unpopular statement about evolution, or global warming, or even whether Trump was the greatest president of all time. He asserted in no unclear terms that female employees had an unfair advantage at Google and that anyone who thinks otherwise has to be ideologically blinded.
If Damore believed in the bell curve he used that there is a significant overlap in populations he would have come to the conclusion that women were about as trustworthy as men, and he'd have paid attention to their experiences. He chose not to do that, he only used that bell curve to assert men were superior to women in tech jobs - the old "I'm not a sexist but..." excuse.
There was no attempt at an open discussion - if he wanted one, he could have just asked female employees about their experiences about the hiring or promotion process and how it might be made fairer. He probably would have found someone like Sabine who would point out where his reasoning is good and where it's faulty. And if he took such an approach, it wouldn't be seen as accusing all female Google employees - which is the reason he was fired.
7:50 AM, August 09, 2017
Hi Bee,
I cannot read most of the papers re: gender differences you linked to, but as far as I remember, most differences between men and women come in at less than one sigma, is that true for those also?
Also, you say that affirmative action leads to “every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job”. That is true, but the coorporate (and other) biases that lead to hiring of white cis christian (and whatever else you want) men do the same thing, only not that obvious, by recognizing fewer skills on everyone who does not resemble the predominant group of people already present. Thus, the biaes tend to not create meritocracies, but to mirrortocracies.
9:42 AM, August 09, 2017
Arun,
I understand that Google is a company and not a university. I also understand that given the publicity it would have created an uproar had they not quickly gotten rid of the guy. I still think it's a mistake though.
The reason is that I think his opinions are quite widely spread and Google is, company or not, a nerd's place. The uproar you'd have heard would have come from a small but loud group of people. And that, I think, is a very general problem which we have seen abundantly on social media in the last years. We give disproportional relevance to opinions a lot of people don't share because of manufactured outrage and because too many of us remain silent. Google could have, but didn't, make a case that it's possible to calmly discuss the matter. They didn't.
Frankly, it makes me very pessimistic about what's to come.
I don't own stocks. Best,
B.
9:56 AM, August 09, 2017
Bjorn,
The common standard for statistical significance in sociology and psychology is a p-value of .05 which is something like 2 sigma I think. But, yeah, this isn't particle physics.
10:07 AM, August 09, 2017