>> Is there any evidence that this is biological, as opposed to cultural?

> [Plenty]

> It looks like there is only indirect evidence,

And there go the goalposts, red-shifting into the sunset.

> "correlation means causation" / "there is good evidence ... play a role ..."

Well, remember that Damore's claim was that there is evidence that we cannot categorically rule out biological causes for the skewed representation, in addition to discrimination.

For that claim, even much weaker evidence than what exists would have been sufficient.

Damore’s claim was that the evidence justified specific corporate policy responses, including rejecting several of Google’s public core values.

Nah. His claim was that there was enough evidence to question policies (secret policies that were in violation of those public core values and probably also the law) that are based on the completely unfounded assumption that discrimination/bias/oppression is the only possible cause for unequal representation.

It's more like Damore's claim was that specific corporate policy were based on the assumption of the opposite. Also, he did not reject Google's core values, unless you take a biased and imputational reading.

> It's more like Damore's claim was that specific corporate policy were based on the assumption of the opposite

No, while that was a supporting claim, the conclusory claims everything in the manifesto are offered to support are that specific policy changes are justified.

> Also, he did not reject Google's core values, unless you take a biased and imputational reading.

As an example, empathy is a core publicly-stated internal value of Google which Damore explicitly called for de-emphasizing. There's nothing “biased and imputational” about reading Damore’s words to mean what they explicitly say.

> everything in the manifesto are offered to support are that specific policy changes are justified.

No. The main reason he gives for policy changes is that the policy isn't working. Numbers haven't budged, despite measures getting ever more extreme and likely illegal. He then suggests that maybe, just maybe, the policy is based on a false assumption. And then delivers some evidence that this could be true. And then presents some ideas of what policies might have a better chance of working.

> empathy is a core publicly-stated internal value of Google which Damore explicitly called for de-emphasizing

Where? I've searched a bunch of places and can't find this, for example:

https://www.google.com/about/philosophy.html

I also googled "google values" and none of the posts so far have had "empathy" in them, though it could be that I haven't searched enough. Anyway, empathy is not a value. Empathy is an emotional capacity. His criticism of empathy is, as far as I can tell, based on the thesis of Paul Bloom's recent book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. [1][2][3].

"Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make."

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compass...

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29100194-against-empathy

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/books/review-against-empa...

There is quite a distance between:

"We cannot rule out biological causes" and "We should base our HR policy on this speculative research".

"We should not base our corporate policy on the completely unproven and highly unlikely assumption that oppression is the only possible cause of unequal representation"

There, fixed that for you.

Also, the research is not at all speculative, quite the opposite. It is immeasurably more solid than the blind assertion that unequal representation is caused entirely/solely by oppression/discrimination etc., for which there is very little evidence overall, and virtually none that holds up to any sort of scrutiny.

Given that there is no known mechanism, characterizing it as "the opposite of speculative" seems rather naive.

Sorry, I can't parse this. Are you saying that until we have a complete understanding of how the brain and mind work, all psychological research is essentially worthless?

On the contrary, I'm saying that speculative research probably isn't suitable for crafting HR policies.

So you agree with James. Glad we could clear that up.

Background: there is little to no evidence for the assertion that discrimination/oppression is the sole cause of the under-representation of women in tech, but that assertion is the basis of the HR policies that Damore criticized. In fact, the evidence that it is even a contributing factor is at best scant/anecdotal.

The evidence that Damore cited is incomparably more solid.

ok what about this "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616...)

"Abstract

Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes."

I assume you are presenting this as another example of indirect correlational evidence, with no hypothetical mechanism.

The study examined female and male brains, found that males on average had a higher general intelligence score and a higher standard deviation. The study also found that male brains had on average higher surface area and size even if you control for body size. The study found that brain size in both genders on average leads to a higher g.

I don't understand how your criticism "indirect correlational evidence" applies to this study, could you maybe elaborate on how you would improve this study?

I presume you are offering this study as evidence of differences due to sex.

Yes isn't it?

No, it's evidence that they are correlated, not causal.

so you believe that physical difference between sexes in size of the brain, is not due to sex? what would you say this is caused by?

I would like to point out that saying this changes are due to evolution not sex is unvalid because then nothing will be due to sex, not saying that you think that but just getting it out of the way.

Well hell, the Newtonian laws of motion had no hypothetical mechanism for gravity for a rather long time. We're still in the early days of figuring out Homo sapiens. Don't get your knickers in a bunch, yet. It looks like you're uptight about something.

Nothing to get your knickers in a bunch about, is what I'd say about it. (Note, that term can refer to golf pants.)