Re:The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo
by mpweiher on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @03:52PM
(#15021718)
> Saying "in part" is still making a judgement in arguing biology is a factor.
No it is not saying "is" a factor when it actually says could be a factor (in the outcomes).
This is elementary school english.
That biology "is" a factor in the differences between men and women is not really debatable at this point. If you believe different, read The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker.
Re:The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo
by singingfish on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @03:44PM
(#15021639)
+1. Discussing the differences bewween population differences, and then failing to discuss the magnitude of these differences (which to my understanding are small and inconsistently detected) makes large swathes of the infamous memo's argument invalid.
I agree he does say "possible" and "may" in a few places, but he's inconsistent. Overwhelmingly, he makes deterministic statements, including when he gives interviews (for example at 5:32 in one with CNN [1])
As the evolutionary biologist notes,
1. There are conflicting results with the research showing gender differences in personality traits
2. The research doesn't actually show that these trait differences are biological
3. "It is a massive leap to conclude that a slight difference in average personality must undermine women's professional abilities in software engineering"
> And so on and so forth in tedious repetitiveness.
The full response [2] is well worth a read. It is the most comprehensive point-by-point reply by a scientist to Damore to date.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...
[2] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...