I don't agree with him. I just think the witch-hunt is intellectually dishonest. I highly suggest reading the memo if you haven't.

To rephrase what I'm talking about: some studies say women are less good at spatial reasoning than men -- maybe you can make an argument that Task X requires spatial reasoning skills. Assuming that argument is true it would stand to reason that statistically more men are capable of doing Task X than women. That's a far cry from saying women lack the ability to do Task X.

To refrain, I think Damore's conclusions are probably wrong. However I think there's a shocking abundance of willful ignorance whenever this topic gets raised.

I have read the memo, I have looked at the studies. The studies suggest that there is a large overlap between men and women concerning personality traits. Further more there it suggest no correlation between these traits and other things we deem import in engineering like intelligence.

You speak of willful ignorance, yet talk of studies you don't even link nor explain why they have anything to do with this. Why would this study about spatial reasoning by more important than e.g. SAT scores? How does that actually relate to women becoming engineers when there is no shortage of women who are capable of completing a CS degree?

You also seem to suggest that Damore's voice is important because other people aren't talking about this. As well as that people who disagree with him doesn't do so legitimately but because they don't like his opinions. That people don't talk about this isn't true, they just don't reach the same conclusions. Here is one example from the summery of the study "The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics":

"We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics."

So why doesn't Damore, or yourself, mention a study like this that can be easily be found online?

You're agreeing with me. I think his conclusions are wrong for many of the reasons you outlined. My issue is with people who misrepresent his argument and publicly shame him for it while denying there's an intellectual discussion to be had.

> The point is whether those biological differences significantly affect your ability to be a professional engineer.

So, to me this reads as bias. When I read his claim, I don't see it as implying that women are in any way less capable of becoming professional engineers, but (in context to his other assertions) that they are less likely to desire becoming a professional engineer.

And where is the evidence that biology is a factor in influencing career choice ? Haven't seen anything like that to date.

Equally valid is having is that having to work with socially inept people reduces the appeal.

Damore links to studies in his paper, but ignoring that for a second -- I could post a paper, and you could post a rebuttal, and blah blah blah -- but the point isn't that he's right or wrong, at least to me, the point is that if he intended to say that women, for whatever reason, simply disprefer professions like engineering, that it is a far less acerbic interpretation.

I'll freely offer that nothing in his paper affirms my interpretation of his view any more than yours, but if the only difference is that I'm more willing to assume good faith where you are not, then perhaps that's reason enough to not demand that he be insta-fired from any job he ever get, as many are asking to happen.

if bilogical reasons makes you more likely to study a field other than engineering. I say that this biological reasons make you less likely to become an engineer. and by "you" I mean a random woman. Of course some woman want to go and study engineering and they have the right to do so and be hired in a fair hiring process.

No body is arguing against the right of women to become engineers. It's just stating that the assumption that "hidden bias" exists if a field is not at 50/50 is untrue. and by the way, I'm yet to find any proof for that. if you find a study that indicates no discirimination leads to 50/50 in all fields or at least in engineering I will be happy to read it.