If course, he didn’t say “on average women are incapable of leadership”. Care to try again with words he actually used?

Can you? I'm not trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages.

No one is trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages. That's the point. The fact that you can't support your assertions about Damore's claims (without changing his words) proves my point. :)

You mean the direct quote made above with the "assertions"? Are you intentionally playing dumb?

Here it is (again):

> 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.

Damore's argument looks more like this:

An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech.

There are men and women at the tail who are capable of being in tech.

Because of the difference in averages, there are fewer women than men who are capable and want to be in tech.

---

Collapsing all that to "women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech" is disingenuous. Using words like "incapable" implies binariness, ignoring the continuous nature of distributions.

Collapsing Damore's argument into "An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech." is disingenious, especially given his quote only speaks to one sex.

But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.

I do google Damore on HN to seek out misinformation to debunk. The other hot takes that I do is trash-talking car dependent urban planning.

Occasionally I learn things in the latter discussions.