>if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor.
This isn't true.
This isn't true.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
>Apart from that she seems to reading a lot of stuff into the memo that Damore probably wouldn't agree is there, i.e. he is a racist/sexist/alt-right bigot.
Well his first interview was with Stefan Molyneux and he's done another with Jordan Peterson. I'm assuming Mike Cernovich and Lauren Southern are next? Come on. The thing about writing a dogwhistling document like his memo is you have to keep your true beliefs secret. By running straight to some of the darlings of the alt-right he's exposed himself a bit and his dogwhistles become clear as exactly that.
Where does he say this?
As for the interviewers, so what? Either the claims are supported by the facts or not, who's agenda is served by those facts is an entirely separate issue.
The "and abilities" part is the important bit because it's where he makes a logical leap. So here's what I'm going to ask of you as someone who seems to like Damore's document and likes the scientific process behind it. Can you find me scientific evidence that men are biologically predisposed to have greater tech abilities?
"A 2005 study by Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, and Timothy Bates, focusing on the ASVAB showed a significantly higher variance in male scores, resulting in more than twice as many men as women scoring in the top 2%"
..."the study indicated that, while boys and girls performed similarly on average, boys were over-represented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...
I took the ASVAB as a teen, and I was relentlessly pursued by military recruiters for years afterward.
What part of this answer makes you say that? She is quoting directly from the paper a bunch of times, offering refutations, and providing sources. I agree that she is reading into the memo. I don't agree that she is agreeing with the science -- she's spent thousands of words doing the exact opposite.
I've tried to toe the line and not get into the argument as much as I can because, as evidenced by the previous HN thread [1], it's just two sides yelling past each. Some are citing scientific papers stating they are correct (which a single paper does not make), others are arguing based on remembering other scientific papers and virtually no one seems to be an expert but are all commenting as such.
What I would like to point out is the article in question isn't very well sourced. It points to "four - academic studies" [2] [3] [4] [5] but none of those are actual studies; they're all replies to a single study (Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic [6]) and none include a methodology to how they came to their reply conclusion as the full text barely contains anything additional to the extract. Now I'm not writing them off as wrong but those are being misrepresented as studies without having the proper information a study or research paper would require. Unless it's available elsewhere? It's unclear at least to me and appears, again to me, as very misleading.
Ultimately there is a boat load of research out there. Some of it is going to support the Google memo writing. Some of it will not. Some of it can be used to represent both sides of the argument. I think a better article, should one exist, should be used to defect your viewpoint should you side with the Google memo. Much of science requires a consensus and rock solid testing methodologies and I'm just not seeing that sourced in the article.
Again, I am not an expert but this is my impression from this article. Feel free to make any corrections to my statement :)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787
[2] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.extract
[3] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971.extract
[4] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966.extract
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge...
If you say so. I'm not an expert but as I wrote in my comment it appears either terribly sourced or the author equates replies to research as full blown studies.
> Here's another one, but from a Psychologist rather than a neurologist.
This one, as far as I can tell, mostly ignores much of the critical feedback that I've seen so far. Again, I'm not an expert but I'm surprised it doesn't call this out explicitly and in greater detail if the critics are wrong. Like, it has some small references to it but not a lot of direct discussion around it.
Not that all of the critical articles are better in terms of sources, etc I just haven't seen any of the articles in support of the memo be very well sourced or respond to much of the criticism directly.