Just in case you were reading Gizmodo's version, http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-div..., please note that the original document has been edited specifically to remove data and references.
> The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.
It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the manifesto's argumentation. Furthermore, some statements match what I read in some evolutionary psychology books.
I believe it would be very helpful if people could correct the manifesto author's statements and provide references instead of attacking the author.
I don't see why they should lose social capital or the respect of their coworkers. Why does the US society want to punish people so severely for expressing opinions in a polite way instead of correcting them when necessary and giving them a second chance?