[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by VAV1500

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...te%20Team2.pdf

JSOU "study" results. Didn't see it on here/the other thread.

Mostly more of the same bullshit, with a few strange twists. Worth a look, know your enemy.

That paper is a thinly veiled liberal paper that is written to support integration. Like all liberal political papers there are a high amount of variables not really presented, tons of information missing as far as the data for the consumer. It is a biased paper that used poor examples for comparison without in depth backgrounds on how the situation and integration of the mentioned jobs got to where they were when the paper was written. I personally would prefer to see the talent pool of candidates and test results the females allegedly beat out for the job, the laws that were enacted and legal ramifications for selecting a better candidate over a female.

For example the surveys we took from Rand were biased and asked question that gave us no where to go with the answers such as questions about fine motor skills. Another variable is the culture of SF when it comes to any survey their is a prevailing opinion that leaders like to remind us that they don't matter so just mark neutral and get it done so I can give %100 to higher. Or here is a classic when it comes to command climate surveys "I don't say anything because they know who writes what and you get fucked". These morally heroic turds like to brag about how they just marked neutral and go about their day.

Do you think the above info would be important to know before you accept the probability of accuracy. Silence is consent