4 ms·

The existence of some differences is pretty well established. The relevance of those differences to software engineering is less so. As one example, here's a

The existence of some differences is pretty well established. The relevance of those differences to software engineering is less so. As one example, here's a pretty thorough take-down of the Baron-Cohen experiment that Damore cites as part of his evidence. https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-me... Then there's the fact that even in the presence of persistent individual differences greater diversity might be beneficial to the group as a whole. After all, if you're putting together a football team you might want more than one kind of player. Why should that same "different people for different roles" principle apply among software engineers at Google? People who harp on "the science" of Damore's memo should consider that there are plenty of scientific points involved other than the one about infant cognition.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
Sure. And I think what you're bringing up here is the debate I'd like to see. I was lamenting that I'm not seeing that debate, but rather a blanket dismissal which seems disingenuous -- which I can only attribute to misguided, but well-meaning intentions.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  I think the problem is the person at the center of the debate is not good with words. He at times simultaneously says that he merely introduces the possibility that biological differences cause genders to choose different roles, and that biological differences cause less women to enter tech and leadership roles. One statement sounds like unestablished scientific fact, and the other sounds like it's already been established. Note that this is exactly what Trump does, and the more he speaks, the more people he activates on both sides of the debate. Scientifically speaking, this feels pretty disingenuous. On the other hand, if you previously felt apathy was a problem in democracy, perhaps this is a cure.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

Sure. And I think what you're bringing up here is the debate I'd like to see. I was lamenting that I'm not seeing that debate, but rather a blanket dismissal which seems disingenuous -- which I can only attribute to misguided, but well-meaning intentions.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
I think the problem is the person at the center of the debate is not good with words. He at times simultaneously says that he merely introduces the possibility that biological differences cause genders to choose different roles, and that biological differences cause less women to enter tech and leadership roles. One statement sounds like unestablished scientific fact, and the other sounds like it's already been established. Note that this is exactly what Trump does, and the more he speaks, the more people he activates on both sides of the debate. Scientifically speaking, this feels pretty disingenuous. On the other hand, if you previously felt apathy was a problem in democracy, perhaps this is a cure.