> backed by links
> PhD in sexual neuroscience
> female
There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.
> PhD in sexual neuroscience
> female
There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.
Oops, sorry I guess my comment was worded a bit confusingly there. When I said "backed by links to scientific studies" I was referring to the original memo. The Gizmodo article which originally leaked the memo omitted those links, but they're present in the original document: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
> PhD in sexual neuroscience
> female
These qualities are helpful for getting other people to take the article seriously instead of just immediately dismissing it as an "anti-diversity screed", but they don't in and of themselves affect the factual accuracy of the statements being made. As I said, this author is mostly just re-affirming the same points that were made in the original memo; those underlying points are equally valid regardless of who's making them.
And for the gender of the person advancing an argument to matter seems only to strongly confirm the memos points about discrimination against men.
Counter-factuals are always difficult, but it seems unlikely that we would ever have heard about this memo, much less seen its author fired, had the exact same text been written by a woman.
Because most of the reactions were emotional, not rational. If we were rational beings it wouldn't matter, but we're not and never have been.
I regularly see psueodo-science blog posts that are "backed by links". Let's pick one of Soh's claims that are backed by a link:
> As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated[1] by men.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140
Soh uses [1] to claim that Holland Categories and STEM interest have a causation for employment in related fields. In fact, the article merely supports the claim that women have statistical preference for certain Holland Categories and STEM interests.
So why did she use this as a reference to support her claim about employment in the field? It's certainly a reasonable logical step to make, but the citation should be moved back one sentence.
Besides, I'm very curious how that source controlled for cultural influences. Women are regularly discouraged from expressing STEM interests culturally, so it's no surprise to me that they don't express a preference towards it.