3 ms·

And I can't see how one would interpret that as meaning "ill-equipped to handle the rigors of the tech industry".

emodendroket 9y ago
It says 1) that women are innately different from men in some unspecified way and that 2) this difference may explain the gender gap in technology. I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims.
- GenericsMotors 9y ago
  > I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims. It doesn't. You and the article make a leap that amounts to putting words in Damore's mouth. On the flip side: in fields where women are over-represented (veterinary medicine), is this because men are ill-equipped to be vets or is it that most men opt not to take this career path?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Well, it depends. Are you claiming there is a biological difference between men and women that explains the gap in veterinary medicine? If so then yes, I would say that is your claim.
    - GenericsMotors 9y ago
      Perhaps there is, yet this still wouldn't make men "ill-equipped" to be vets. Only different enough that most choose not to be. Can you see now how you and the article are misrepresenting the original statement?
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Well, frankly, no, I still don't see where you're coming from at all.
        cowpig 9y ago
        Ill-equipped: I'm ill-equipped to play basketball at a professional level: I'm not particularly huge, I have weak knees, and I broke my arm as a child in a way that prevents me from shooting correctly. However, I love basketball and have spent many hours of my life improving myself at it. If I was well-equipped to play professionally, I probably would do so. Choose not to: I am well-equipped to walk the Appalachian trail. I have done multiple-day hikes before, and am confident I would be capable of achieving this. However, taking seven months out of my life to walk across some mountains doesn't appeal to me. I choose not to do so. Does that make the difference clear?
        emodendroket 9y ago
        At a minimum, he is claiming that women are biologically predisposed to not want to be in tech jobs or be leaders. I don't see that as analogous to "I don't want to do something."
        cowpig 9y ago
        The point is there's a difference between saying I'm biologically predisposed to some preference, and I'm biologically ill-equipped to achieve something. If you don't see how important this difference is, consider this: if someone is biologically ill-equipped to do something, it's easy to justify not hiring them. If they're predisposed against interest in something, it's easy to simply hire the ones who are interested (their mere application is already a strong indicator against whatever biological predisposition). edit: That's all to say that saying someone is "biologically ill-equipped" is clearly problematic, while saying someone is "biologically predisposed against interest in x" is maybe problematic, and if so, much less problematic than the former claim.
- akatechis 9y ago
  The differences are not "unspecified" The research he cites shows that women are typically more agreeable and less aggressive.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    OK, so it's specified elsewhere in the essay. Does that change the argument in some way?
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  Third or fourth person here to tell you that you're incorrect: There's a huge leap between "biological differences may explain the gender gap" and "women are ill-equipped..." and here's why: First and most obvious, do you know the difference between the words "may" and "are"? "May" expresses possibility. "Are" expresses existence. They are almost total opposites. Second and most important, "biological differences" does not automatically equate to women being "ill-equipped". That's just in your mind. It could mean so many things and you're just cherry-picking the one that aligns with your personal view.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    How do you interpret it, then?
    - belorn 9y ago
      Lets give one example of an interpretation. Small preference can cause major effects. For example, if you have a group where everyone are voting on food choice and preference to eat taco get 99.9999...% the preference rating of pizza, how much taco will be eaten if you go 10 rounds? 0% Taco. the infinitive small preference will cause each round to have pizza with higher preference than taco, regardless of how close the actually preference of taco vs pizza. If different groups of people rate jobs with different preference, then even a infinitive small preference can cause segregation. That preference is not a judgment of the groups ability to perform the job. Not that I think that is the cause of gender segregation. Personally I view incentives and self-doubt to be much more realistic causes, but that theory (which has pretty decent observational data to support it) are currently not very popular on either side of the political spectrum.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

It says 1) that women are innately different from men in some unspecified way and that 2) this difference may explain the gender gap in technology. I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims.

GenericsMotors 9y ago
> I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims. It doesn't. You and the article make a leap that amounts to putting words in Damore's mouth. On the flip side: in fields where women are over-represented (veterinary medicine), is this because men are ill-equipped to be vets or is it that most men opt not to take this career path?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, it depends. Are you claiming there is a biological difference between men and women that explains the gap in veterinary medicine? If so then yes, I would say that is your claim.
  - GenericsMotors 9y ago
    Perhaps there is, yet this still wouldn't make men "ill-equipped" to be vets. Only different enough that most choose not to be. Can you see now how you and the article are misrepresenting the original statement?
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Well, frankly, no, I still don't see where you're coming from at all.
      - cowpig 9y ago
        Ill-equipped: I'm ill-equipped to play basketball at a professional level: I'm not particularly huge, I have weak knees, and I broke my arm as a child in a way that prevents me from shooting correctly. However, I love basketball and have spent many hours of my life improving myself at it. If I was well-equipped to play professionally, I probably would do so. Choose not to: I am well-equipped to walk the Appalachian trail. I have done multiple-day hikes before, and am confident I would be capable of achieving this. However, taking seven months out of my life to walk across some mountains doesn't appeal to me. I choose not to do so. Does that make the difference clear?
        emodendroket 9y ago
        At a minimum, he is claiming that women are biologically predisposed to not want to be in tech jobs or be leaders. I don't see that as analogous to "I don't want to do something."
        cowpig 9y ago
        The point is there's a difference between saying I'm biologically predisposed to some preference, and I'm biologically ill-equipped to achieve something. If you don't see how important this difference is, consider this: if someone is biologically ill-equipped to do something, it's easy to justify not hiring them. If they're predisposed against interest in something, it's easy to simply hire the ones who are interested (their mere application is already a strong indicator against whatever biological predisposition). edit: That's all to say that saying someone is "biologically ill-equipped" is clearly problematic, while saying someone is "biologically predisposed against interest in x" is maybe problematic, and if so, much less problematic than the former claim.
akatechis 9y ago
The differences are not "unspecified" The research he cites shows that women are typically more agreeable and less aggressive.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  OK, so it's specified elsewhere in the essay. Does that change the argument in some way?
hungerstrike 9y ago
Third or fourth person here to tell you that you're incorrect: There's a huge leap between "biological differences may explain the gender gap" and "women are ill-equipped..." and here's why: First and most obvious, do you know the difference between the words "may" and "are"? "May" expresses possibility. "Are" expresses existence. They are almost total opposites. Second and most important, "biological differences" does not automatically equate to women being "ill-equipped". That's just in your mind. It could mean so many things and you're just cherry-picking the one that aligns with your personal view.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  How do you interpret it, then?
  - belorn 9y ago
    Lets give one example of an interpretation. Small preference can cause major effects. For example, if you have a group where everyone are voting on food choice and preference to eat taco get 99.9999...% the preference rating of pizza, how much taco will be eaten if you go 10 rounds? 0% Taco. the infinitive small preference will cause each round to have pizza with higher preference than taco, regardless of how close the actually preference of taco vs pizza. If different groups of people rate jobs with different preference, then even a infinitive small preference can cause segregation. That preference is not a judgment of the groups ability to perform the job. Not that I think that is the cause of gender segregation. Personally I view incentives and self-doubt to be much more realistic causes, but that theory (which has pretty decent observational data to support it) are currently not very popular on either side of the political spectrum.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]