Hacker News Reader

Comment by cortesoft | Hacker News Reader

Except, he did, in a few different ways:

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."

"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. ... Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ... Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average"

He is clearly using softer language to make his point, but he spends multiple paragraphs explaining why biological reasons are behind the lack of women in tech.... which boils down to "men are biologically better suited for tech work."

It isn't a bad characterization to say that is saying women are biologically less qualified than men for tech jobs.

View on HN

I would summarize those two quotes as saying something more like "women may be biologically less inclined to want a job in tech and therefore expecting a 50% representation of women is unrealistic".

My reading of the memo, way back when it broke, was that his argument was more about differences in interest/inclination rather than ability.

I dispute that the difference in interest, if it exists, is biological. There are so many societal factors that come into play here from early age, and they all influence the outcome. It's an unfair world from the start.

Please note that I'm taking this position (or any other) myself. I'm merely trying to clarify what I think Damore's memo said. While I think it's entirely fair to say he's wrong, I think it's deeply unfair to mischaracterize what he wrote as so many have done.

how can you say that you dont think interest exists but if it does then its definitely not biological?

Supposing there's a 1955 Cadillac Series 62 Coupe in the middle of Antartica, which most likely there isn't, it didn't fall there from space.

I have no particular stakes on this discussion besides this one, I just dropped by to say this: I don't see any problem with the construction of that statement. At least as an informal or "folk" logic argument.

ok so the question still stands, you dont think theres a car in antartica, but if there is you know it didnt come from space

how do you know either things and why does the first mean the other is not possible?

also your example is using "from space" which is obviously fictional compared to "biological" which there is plenty of evidence for

I didn't say that. The "if it exists" I wrote came from "women may be biologically" from the parent. I'm disputing the statement that it's biological. The burden of proof is on whoever is making that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_education#H...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_education#C...

why else would you write "if it exists" if you already knew a difference existed? you would just say that you dont believe its biological in that case, so it seems like youre trying to go backwards and deny your own words here

This is how partisan ideology warps your mind.

Averages say nothing about individuals. Do you avoid hiring black people due to higher criminal background rates in the US?

If the pressure in the US is on average higher for males to focus on career, then that will influence overall percentages in top competitive careers. It doesn't at all imply that the women in the top are unqualified, it just explaining why they make up a smaller percentage.

Talking about averages is not "softer language". It's not related to making generalizations at all.

Nobody "avoids" hiring women. Women just avoid applying.

None of the things you quoted mean that women are less qualified. What was meant is that women are generally not as interested in this type of work as men are, hence the disparity in numbers. Two very different things.

No, he claimed that men are more likely to choose to enter technical fields, due to a combination of both biological and societal reasons.

This is not a pedantic distinction. Your summary states that Damore uses biology to say that women are worse at performing in tech roles, whereas the memo was focused on women entering or not entering the field as a whole (though to be fair many news outlets promulgated the same incorrect summary).

Furthermore it also seems to erroneously imply that Damore claimed that biology is the exclusive reason for low rates of women in tech, which is not the case.

I am extremely highly qualified to work at a cashier job, but I don't have a job working as a cashier, because I have other options I prefer.

Are you aware of the difference between qualified and interested?

Are you qualified to paint a house? Are you interested in painting a house? Are those the same exact sentences?

That is quite a jump you're making. Interest != qualification and looking for work-life balance != lack of qualification.

I think that it is a bad characterization to make that leap of logic. Just considering the statements that you've chosen, I see nothing that says anything about whether either sex is more qualified, only statements about the sex distribution in tech.

Is there something that more directly relates to qualifications inside of his essay? I have not read it.

He also said "Populations have significant overlap." and "Reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap (this is bad and I don't endorse that)"

This text was in a diagram caption that (along with the embedded hyperlinks) was stripped out of the version that most people saw.

the Memo is talking about interest while this article is talking about ability.

At no point the memo is stating that women are less capable than men.

Neither of your quotes speak to qualifications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com