What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?
quora.com
quora.com
Damore never argued for this, he argued that cognitive sex differences could possibly influence interest in software engineering work as it done today and that difference in interest could partially explain the gender gap in tech. He then suggest that we try alternate approaches when we try to increase women's representation since they might work better, which hints at him thinking that women would be valuable as engineers at Google, just that the current arguably misplaced diversity efforts might not achieve that goal.
I have never wanted to use all caps so badly before in my life.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Is the articles quote unfair then? It explicitly calls out an apparent jump from preferences to abilities in the original. (My emphasis)
>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
>
> At what point did we jump from talking about personalities to abilities?
Indeed, but the relationship is not necessarily simple and requires argumentation rather than handwave.
> 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.”
Evolutionary biologist Suzanne Sadedin (quora answer linked here):
> It’s true that women and men, on average, have been found in some studies to differ in empathizing/agreeableness, systematizing, gregariousness versus assertiveness; and neuroticism.
This guy was naive enough to try and present a rational and measured suggestion for meaningful improvement.
this permeates all levels of their culture and cements company ethos as a race between employees rather than a collaborative endeavor in profit sharing, stable growth, harmonious balance. you should look at it as a sandbox environment to test out human ingenuity, everything else be damned. americans are ephemeral, they don't exist as a collective. despite the quasi-fascist 100 year long effort to build militaristic patriotism into the hearts and minds of the young.
how many american politicians have been educated in the far east? asia is the biggest threat to american dominance in the next century and americas role in world government is only nascent. they will have a clear road towards leadership and development of the human race going forward. yet their business, cultural and political thinkers have no experience with half of the worlds population.
everyone says one thing and does something else. it's more transparent and sleazy in america. give them another few hundred years to refine their technique.
He could be talking about a difference in variance of IQ between genders, which has been observed in some studies.
Sexist or not, the original manifesto was anti science. How so many whose paycheck depends on the implementation of logic got hoodwinked into defending what basically amounts to an political pamphlet by a couple of references baffles me.
Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest.
What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion.
You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid because it has something to do with the initial claim.
What happened here was:
-Fact: Women are different than men.
-Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT.
-Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.
or
-Fact: all goats breathe
-Observation: Plato breathes
-Conclusion: Plato is a goat.
I hope everyone recognises this fallacy.
It's pointless to keep presenting evidence for the initial fact. What you need to do is introduce new facts that construct a solid argument that includes your observation and logically binds it into the conclusion.
As the quora article points out, that's not what happened.
On top of that (or underneath) there's also some political la-ti-da going on, which is fine for a memo, and if it had been restricted to that, I doubt it would have caused this much commotion.
TL;DR (also, don't use that term in any sort of treatise that you want to sound scientific) if you want to use science to shield you from negative reactions to postulating an unpopular idea, make sure it's sound.
That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.
Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s).
> you don't agree with the argument
"Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a non-conservative point of view."
That doesn't follow.
> attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science.
New Earth creationism, anti-evolution, etc. Let's try and be realistic here. Interpreting conclusions of actual science to derive truths that were never implied by said conclusions to further base your own argument on is intellectually dishonest and not "pro-science".
Your assertion of the memo's claim:
-Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.
This is close to what I believe Damore was saying, only replace 'must be' with 'may in part be and we shouldn't rule out the possibility just because it's politically incorrect to discuss.'
Here's what I claim the current politically correct claim is:
-Fact: There have been cases of sexism found in IT. -Observation: IT as a whole is a sexist industry. -Conclusion: this gender difference in IT must be based primarily on this sexism.
However, is this a foregone conclusion, given the current studies found on it? I know of several attempts which have been made but none are any more persuasive to me than Damore's theory, either being too small, flawed(often for the same reason Damore felt the need to write the memo and why he was fired), or just inconclusive. And it seems anecdotal evidence makes up a large part of our reason for believing it as a society.
It's quite possible the truth lies in a mixture of both, in fact I'd say I'm almost certain of it. However, for some reason everyone is outraged at the suggestion that there might be a drop of truth behind what Damore was saying even though he wasn't claiming gender inferiority, merely preference.
Additionally, I don't believe he was misusing the conclusions of the scientific studies he cited. The prime example is his claim of women being more 'neurotic,' and people immediately assume he's calling them inferior. Whereas there was no value judgment in the original scientific study (which was widely accepted prior to the memo) or his application of it and may very well indicate a preference not to work in IT.
You don't know that, and I get little impression of such from his Bloomberg appearance today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engin...
Even so you are aware the Quora question is "What do scientists think about the biological claims?", so the ad hominem is not only a distracting annoyance but is also undermining of one's claim to objective impartiality.
None of this means that they are wrong on the substantive points they make though, even though you're right that the alt-right claim isn't helpful. In fact I got the impression of someone who feels very strongly about the issues, but who is still trying to engage logically and reasonably and in good faith, even if they slip occasionally. Much the same can probably be said for the original memo author.
According to the Guardian[1], "Damore initially told the Guardian he would answer questions by email on Monday, but then stopped responding to inquiries. He had a few brief email exchanges with reporters, including at the New York Times, Bloomberg and the rightwing site website Breitbart."
Giving an extended interview with Molyneux instead of the NYT or even Breitbart is not recommended if you want to avoid being seen as anti-feminist or "alt-right".
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam...
Well, when you put it like that, firing the guy was clearly the best decision.....
edit: formatting
Simply dismissing counterpoints without engaging to make sure you understand them runs the risk of falling for the exact thing you're criticising.
> one scientist's opinion
We're reaching "both sides of the climate change debate" levels of spinning here.
Of course this is much worse than climate change because that's 'hard science' where it's relatively easy to get good evidence. Psychology seems to be barely better than guesswork.
It depends on the school of thought and experimentation methods.
Some, for example, will focus almost exclusively in easily measurable physiological responses to stimuli and draw very restricted conclusions on their experimental results.
Others will sit on a desk, reflect on their past and speculate extensively about human nature based on that.
But yeah, it's a rather soft science.
> > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed ...
> His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e. innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a blank slate).
Within a few lines of each other. I think she is reading what she wants to read.
edit: I find it interesting that most comments criticizing the guy is heavily downvoted while his supporters claim they are being gagged
I don't think we can.
There is no consensus regarding what the "alt-right" is, even among those who self-identify as members.