> In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers.

No he didn't. He said they were inherently less interested in STEM, and speculated about a few personality characteristics from psych research that might explain why, but all of that is irrelevant. Damore explicitly said that you can't judge individual competence from a probability distribution, even if the distribution of competence of each gender were different (which they largely are not).

Here's a broad overview of the literature covering what Damore got right and wrong: http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-re...

Turns out, he was right that women seem to have different interests. I suggest reading about the things vs. people hypothesis. You can get more women into STEM subfields that deal with people if you highlight those aspects. Hiring quotas and some of the other measures Damore was arguing against would indeed have no effect on gender diversity given these facts.

That is not what the memo said. did you not read it or is this what you think the writer meant even if he did not actually write that but you have some kind of mind reading abilities?

There are a couple of reasons people are so quick to claim other people didn't read the memo verbatim. The first being that the first major publication to run with it, and the biggest one here on HN, was the verge's article where citations and graphs were stripped away from it.

The other is that is it often given such uncharitable descriptions that people who have read it simply can't believe the hate levied at it comes from actually having read the thing. I've actually talked this whole topic through for hours back and forth with someone who is very against the memo, but even they they would call it a sexist manifesto. That sort of thing comes across as off the cuff criticism by people who haven't read the thing.

There are many people who’ve read it and reached the same conclusion about his claims. Simply accusing people of not having read it – or the other standard talking point of claiming that the citations somehow completely change the meaning – is a dishonest way to avoid engaging with those criticisms. If they’re wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate that or find a statement by Damore that he didn’t intend his words to be read that way.

Sure thing. He says as such during his interview with Joe Rogan. If your claim is that he intends to present the idea that women are inferior in this field, that interview contradicts it.

Right, so that would be the thing to talk about rather falsely accusing people of not reading his original memo — it was certainly sloppy enough to be possible that the way many people read it was not how he originally intended.

If he's made direct statements rejecting biological determinism it should be easy enough to cite them — and it'd be useful to do so to avoid distraction when his supporters try to rehash the arguments in favor of that position.

You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.

I read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.

Are we counting reviews by pushing the same narrative that was being pushed by the people he originally offended? What I've seen is a number of scientists (in the specific fields that are related to it) backing his work, others attacking it, and all agreeing it doesn't rise to the muster of a peer reviewed paper/meta-analysis (though that seems a pretty insane bar to begin with).

Agreed on by whom? Did you even read the memo yourself?