5 ms·

Cited primary sources, linked his biological argument to his workplace argument with something other than handwaving, avoiding tying his scientific argument to

by mjg59 9y ago

Cited primary sources, linked his biological argument to his workplace argument with something other than handwaving, avoiding tying his scientific argument to a related but not equivalent political argument, taken into account evidence collected from women who've left the industry and ensured that his model accounted for that, and, uh, basically written an actual thesis? If I'd submitted work like this as an undergraduate I'd have got it back with a lot of red ink and a pretty terrible grade. (I work for Google and have a PhD in Biology from Cambridge University)

josteink 9y ago
> Cited primary sources Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them. In addition they also re-badged this internal email as a "manifesto" and presented it as a war-cry rather than a basis for discussion. Pretty dishonest changes really. These dishonest changes certainly helped further this shitstorm. Knowing Gizmodo (and their sister-website Jezebel which has no issues with domestic violence against men), I'm just going to assume this was the intended consequence.
- mirimir 9y ago
  He cited some primary sources. And some Wikipedia pages. But I'm comfortable saying that he doesn't review the issues fully.
  - wyclif 9y ago
    It's a memo, for crying out loud, not a scientific paper. That's why he cites the scientific papers! A full review would require a book-length response.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      He cites a few papers. And whenever you cite a paper, it's best to cite at least two, to bracket the literature, or a decent review article.
- mjg59 9y ago
  > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them Wikipedia is not a primary source.
Pyxl101 9y ago
A professor of social psychology at Rutgers said: > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. An evolutionary psychology professor said: > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) http://archive.is/z6xxP http://archive.is/z6xxP The author of the Google memo did cite primary sources such as: https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...
- mjg59 9y ago
  A professor of social psychology whose position in the field is, let us say, not mainstream, and look evolutionary psychology is just bullshit. Further, https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim... is a review and is therefore (by definition) not a primary source.

by mjg59 9y ago

josteink 9y ago

> Cited primary sources Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them. In addition they also re-badged this internal email as a "manifesto" and presented it as a war-cry rather than a basis for discussion. Pretty dishonest changes really. These dishonest changes certainly helped further this shitstorm. Knowing Gizmodo (and their sister-website Jezebel which has no issues with domestic violence against men), I'm just going to assume this was the intended consequence.

mirimir 9y ago
He cited some primary sources. And some Wikipedia pages. But I'm comfortable saying that he doesn't review the issues fully.
- wyclif 9y ago
  It's a memo, for crying out loud, not a scientific paper. That's why he cites the scientific papers! A full review would require a book-length response.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    He cites a few papers. And whenever you cite a paper, it's best to cite at least two, to bracket the literature, or a decent review article.
mjg59 9y ago
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them Wikipedia is not a primary source.

Pyxl101 9y ago

A professor of social psychology at Rutgers said: > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. An evolutionary psychology professor said: > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) http://archive.is/z6xxP http://archive.is/z6xxP The author of the Google memo did cite primary sources such as: https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...

mjg59 9y ago
A professor of social psychology whose position in the field is, let us say, not mainstream, and look evolutionary psychology is just bullshit. Further, https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim... is a review and is therefore (by definition) not a primary source.