3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

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.