Damore's writing prowess is maybe not the issue exactly, other than it is a symptom of the lack of clarity of his ideas. Unclear ideas, unclear writing. It's certainly reasonable to conclude from Damore's memo that what he believes is that "women choose (and succeed at) tech jobs at a lower rate than men because on average they have biological characteristics that mean they tend to be more suitable for other kinds of work" ... preference, biology, culture, expectations, it's all one big interconnected system. He's not at all clear about what, given the biology, he thinks the "natural" rate is... unless he thinks it's already about right? So it's not clear what he means, or even if he knows what he means. Taplin could certainly have been more precise in the NYT, but Damore did nothing to control interpretation of his words (nothing, at least, that succeeded).
To me this is like trying to optimize software in the wrong place. Biology is surely a factor somewhere in the chain, but many other things are causing more problems, and in ways that are easier to fix, so we probably shouldn't spend time on the biology thing just yet, because it won't cause much impact overall.
It's worth pointing out that Damore allegedly posted his thoughts in an internal forum with the intent of editing and developing his ideas. He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions with a presumption of good faith and professionalism.
> He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions
I'm sure he is surprised at his memo's international newsmaking, but he is not modifying his stance based on the feedback he has received. In his recent WSJ article [0], Damore wrote "I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment" ... which indicates he still thinks the memo was basically fine and that that's all he was doing. He's focusing on the echo chamber and the most gentle and obvious idea in his memo (that not 100% of gender variance is socially constructed). He assumes the only people who were not in agreement with him and complained were those who believe "that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same."
He takes no responsibility for not ever quantifying the biological effect, yet still recommending changes to the processes based only on that the biological component exists at all. This makes no sense to me. Unless maybe he cannot even see the logical gap there because it is filled with his own beliefs and stereotypes about gender.
I assume that article gave him the opportunity to consult a world class editor, and he may print retractions if he chooses.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-15024...
He is clarifying what he meant, to no apparent effect. It's not hard to find a clip of an interviewer asking whether he thinks women are inferior. He, predictably, says he believes nothing of the sort. And then this gets printed in the Times.
> He assumes the only people who were not in agreement with him and complained were those who believe...
I think all your other points are fair points for a discussion of the merits of his ideas. That discussion, at least on his part, isn't really possible now that he has been fired from Google and his views misrepresented so thoroughly everywhere else.
We'll probably just go in circles about this. The content of the memo, as a whole, does not reflect the harmless statement that "not everything is purely cultural" ... To suggest that biology might be even a significant factor in the lopsided representation is a mistake. Not just politically, but I believe factually too. And it is a bad one because it happens to overlap with the general stream of biases and impressions people already have about women in tech. And now they must also deal with people maybe believing their own interpretation of this memo. I think he should have been far more careful and specific in his terms.
Also, he could believe his views are not demeaning to women, and be wrong. It is hard to see our own biases. I feel I have shown much of my own in writing about this but life is short!
He was asked, in the Bloomberg interview [1] (30 sec in), whether he had changed his position at all. He describes the process of creating the document, and explains that the current version is what he believes is the scientific consensus on the matter.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engin...
He mentions aptitude in the essay:
"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."
He also fumbles over his description of this in one of his interviews [1].
> People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess.
Yeah, words matter, particularly when you're claiming your essay is representative of current science, and that you were a PhD student.
> The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT.
This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper:
Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
"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."
People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess. The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT.