5 ms·

This article is very skewed, it's annoying that she wrote things like "which he claimed was backed up by studies." rather than "which are backed up by studies."

jake-low 9y ago
I'm not sure it's possible to cover such a polarizing breaking-news issue in a way that's not "skewed". Intelligent people will read the same memo and interpret it in different ways. It's too soon for anyone to be impartial. Here's [0] a lengthy analysis from an evolutionary biology Ph.D that concludes that Damore built a harmful narrative around weak and cherry-picked scientific studies. Of course it's as "skewed" as anything else in that it contains an opinion, but it also backs up the quote you're objecting to here -- the argument Dr. Sadedin makes is that Damore "claimed" the studies supported his narrative but in fact they didn't. [0]: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
- foolrush 9y ago
  And the author of the paper (implicitly) cited disagrees with the claims. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-an...
  - krrrh 9y ago
    On the other hand, the Wired article also cherry-picks quotes from Mr. Schmitt, whose comments are more fully elucidated in articles he wrote at Psychology Today[1] and Quillette[2] [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/20... [2] http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
  - Smutte 9y ago
    From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership" They are saying the exact same thing? In what way does the scientist disagree in concrete words with things that is actually written in the memo? Also, to avoid further misunderstandings... Quote from link in the Wired article to Psychology Today: "Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe" This is not what the memo did, as far as I can tell. See the quote from the memo again. He is suggesting that "biological sex" (the scientist's words) MAY IN PART explain why the split men/women is not EXACTLY THE SAME (sorry for caps). Do you see how the scientist never actually comments anything concrete in the memo, but only concepts that are related?
    - foolrush 9y ago
      There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle shaping of preferences and desires. And, its a really hard problem. Still room for bio, culture, and bioXculture interactions in ultimate accounts.” https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 And finally, perhaps one of the more well qualified individuals, Suzanne Sadedin (PhD Evolutionary Biology, BA Psychology, and BSc Zoology): “Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.” https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... TL;DR: The “facts” that many insist on, aren't quite as genuinely legible as the screed attempts to make them out to be. Ms. Sadedin’s commentary on the internal memo seems most critical of the interpretation.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  This is a much better and less biased analysis: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what... (Skip to the conclusions if it's too long.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danso 9y ago
Findings from scientific studies are not immutable truth. Nor does citing them automatically make your interpretation of the cited study to be truth. Perhaps the article should have stated, "In a 10-page memo Damore [made claims etc etc] and included citations and references to several scientific studies."
- xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
  So you can never use the phrase "backed up by studies", then?
  - danso 9y ago
    The scientific articles I read don't use that phrase because they actually cite the studies for their assertions, which makes the phrase "backed by studies" redundant. Also, these articles rarely tackle a subject in which "backed by studies" is either use as a rhetorical device or sufficiently accurate. What does "backed" actually mean -- to either scientists or laypersons? If you believe that scientific studies should be accorded authority upon citation, then why not share their respect for nuance and accuracy? For example, in the section in which Damore describes "Personality differences" as being biological traits, including neuroticism and "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things", he links to this meta study: Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.... You've probably read that study so I'll sum it up for the convenience of others. From the abstract: > Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. The meta analysis finds that 3 studies -- 2 of which are authored by this metastudy's author -- have reported a "very large" difference between men and women in "People-Things orientation". And that 4 studies (1 of which is authored by the meta-author) find a "small" to "moderate" gap in neuroticism. Skipping down to the concluding section, titled "Where Do We Go from Here?", the main headings are: - Some methodological suggestions - More cross-cultural research is needed - More research should investigate changes in gender differences over time - The need to move beyond the ‘Big Five’ - The need to test explicit models that include predictions about men’s and women’s mean trait levels and men’s and women’s trait variability The tl;dr is: it's complicated, and we need more research. Which is exactly what you'd expect a responsible scientist to assert given that there were 3 meta-studies relevant to "people-things orientation) that he could find and only 1 of those wasn't his own. Nowhere does the study's author make the claim that this trait is caused by biology. The strongest claim from the author is him citing his previous study and another study which have both considered the possibility, absent an obvious cultural influence: > To answer ‘why’ questions, it helps also to consider ‘when’ and ‘where’ questions – e.g., how consistent are gender differences over time and across cultures? Gender differences that vary over historical time and across cultures point to the importance of social–environmental and cultural factors as causes of gender differences (Eagly & Wood, 1999). In contrast, gender differences that are stable over time and across cultures suggest the influence of biologic factors (Lippa, 2005; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). So a conclusion that argues that: - More research is needed - More explicit behavior models are needed. - Testing such models "may very well yield ‘messy’ results – e.g., results that show both biologic and social–environmental factors contributing to gender differences, to varying degrees for different traits, and varying kinds of interactions between biologic and social–environmental factors." -- obligates us to describe Damore's claim -- "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things" and neuroticism are biologically based -- as being "backed up by studies", and leave it at that? Bullshit. edit: accidentally wrote "Damon" instead of "Damore" in one reference
averagewall 9y ago
It's common for reporters to attribute all facts to someone's claim. I think it's generally a good idea and avoids bias. Personally endorsing a claim would be risky.
- syrrim 9y ago
  The problem is that the author uses "claims" as a way of misrepresented the material of the document. First of all, the phrasing implies that the studies were not linked Damore. Furthermore, the author refers to the claims as "disengenuous", implying that the studies do not exist, or do not demonstrate what Damore claims they do. In other words, the author does not use "claims" to distance herself from the establishment of fact but instead to establish as fact that Damore was wrong.

jake-low 9y ago

I'm not sure it's possible to cover such a polarizing breaking-news issue in a way that's not "skewed". Intelligent people will read the same memo and interpret it in different ways. It's too soon for anyone to be impartial. Here's [0] a lengthy analysis from an evolutionary biology Ph.D that concludes that Damore built a harmful narrative around weak and cherry-picked scientific studies. Of course it's as "skewed" as anything else in that it contains an opinion, but it also backs up the quote you're objecting to here -- the argument Dr. Sadedin makes is that Damore "claimed" the studies supported his narrative but in fact they didn't. [0]: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

foolrush 9y ago
And the author of the paper (implicitly) cited disagrees with the claims. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-an...
- krrrh 9y ago
  On the other hand, the Wired article also cherry-picks quotes from Mr. Schmitt, whose comments are more fully elucidated in articles he wrote at Psychology Today[1] and Quillette[2] [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/20... [2] http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
- Smutte 9y ago
  From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership" They are saying the exact same thing? In what way does the scientist disagree in concrete words with things that is actually written in the memo? Also, to avoid further misunderstandings... Quote from link in the Wired article to Psychology Today: "Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe" This is not what the memo did, as far as I can tell. See the quote from the memo again. He is suggesting that "biological sex" (the scientist's words) MAY IN PART explain why the split men/women is not EXACTLY THE SAME (sorry for caps). Do you see how the scientist never actually comments anything concrete in the memo, but only concepts that are related?
  - foolrush 9y ago
    There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle shaping of preferences and desires. And, its a really hard problem. Still room for bio, culture, and bioXculture interactions in ultimate accounts.” https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 And finally, perhaps one of the more well qualified individuals, Suzanne Sadedin (PhD Evolutionary Biology, BA Psychology, and BSc Zoology): “Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.” https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... TL;DR: The “facts” that many insist on, aren't quite as genuinely legible as the screed attempts to make them out to be. Ms. Sadedin’s commentary on the internal memo seems most critical of the interpretation.
IshKebab 9y ago
This is a much better and less biased analysis: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what... (Skip to the conclusions if it's too long.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danso 9y ago

Findings from scientific studies are not immutable truth. Nor does citing them automatically make your interpretation of the cited study to be truth. Perhaps the article should have stated, "In a 10-page memo Damore [made claims etc etc] and included citations and references to several scientific studies."

xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
So you can never use the phrase "backed up by studies", then?
- danso 9y ago
  The scientific articles I read don't use that phrase because they actually cite the studies for their assertions, which makes the phrase "backed by studies" redundant. Also, these articles rarely tackle a subject in which "backed by studies" is either use as a rhetorical device or sufficiently accurate. What does "backed" actually mean -- to either scientists or laypersons? If you believe that scientific studies should be accorded authority upon citation, then why not share their respect for nuance and accuracy? For example, in the section in which Damore describes "Personality differences" as being biological traits, including neuroticism and "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things", he links to this meta study: Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.... You've probably read that study so I'll sum it up for the convenience of others. From the abstract: > Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. The meta analysis finds that 3 studies -- 2 of which are authored by this metastudy's author -- have reported a "very large" difference between men and women in "People-Things orientation". And that 4 studies (1 of which is authored by the meta-author) find a "small" to "moderate" gap in neuroticism. Skipping down to the concluding section, titled "Where Do We Go from Here?", the main headings are: - Some methodological suggestions - More cross-cultural research is needed - More research should investigate changes in gender differences over time - The need to move beyond the ‘Big Five’ - The need to test explicit models that include predictions about men’s and women’s mean trait levels and men’s and women’s trait variability The tl;dr is: it's complicated, and we need more research. Which is exactly what you'd expect a responsible scientist to assert given that there were 3 meta-studies relevant to "people-things orientation) that he could find and only 1 of those wasn't his own. Nowhere does the study's author make the claim that this trait is caused by biology. The strongest claim from the author is him citing his previous study and another study which have both considered the possibility, absent an obvious cultural influence: > To answer ‘why’ questions, it helps also to consider ‘when’ and ‘where’ questions – e.g., how consistent are gender differences over time and across cultures? Gender differences that vary over historical time and across cultures point to the importance of social–environmental and cultural factors as causes of gender differences (Eagly & Wood, 1999). In contrast, gender differences that are stable over time and across cultures suggest the influence of biologic factors (Lippa, 2005; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). So a conclusion that argues that: - More research is needed - More explicit behavior models are needed. - Testing such models "may very well yield ‘messy’ results – e.g., results that show both biologic and social–environmental factors contributing to gender differences, to varying degrees for different traits, and varying kinds of interactions between biologic and social–environmental factors." -- obligates us to describe Damore's claim -- "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things" and neuroticism are biologically based -- as being "backed up by studies", and leave it at that? Bullshit. edit: accidentally wrote "Damon" instead of "Damore" in one reference

averagewall 9y ago

It's common for reporters to attribute all facts to someone's claim. I think it's generally a good idea and avoids bias. Personally endorsing a claim would be risky.

syrrim 9y ago
The problem is that the author uses "claims" as a way of misrepresented the material of the document. First of all, the phrasing implies that the studies were not linked Damore. Furthermore, the author refers to the claims as "disengenuous", implying that the studies do not exist, or do not demonstrate what Damore claims they do. In other words, the author does not use "claims" to distance herself from the establishment of fact but instead to establish as fact that Damore was wrong.