3 ms·

I agree. But it is really tough to actually play openly, and tough to know when others are playing openly. Enough time has passed that experts have had time to

by Lon7 9y ago

I agree. But it is really tough to actually play openly, and tough to know when others are playing openly. Enough time has passed that experts have had time to comprehend the original document, and it seems like James was only pretending to play openly. He misrepresented a lot of the science and put his own spin on it. A great answer by an evolutionary biologist on how James was absolutely wrong on almost every point he made: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

js8 9y ago
> Enough time has passed that experts have had time to comprehend the original document, and it seems like James was only pretending to play openly Doesn't seem like that to me. The Suzanne Sadedin's answer (which I personally find kinda hard to understand, IMHO it avoids the core argument) was the only answer (of several I read) from an actual scientist that disagreed with what Damore has wrote. Other scientists' responses either agreed or declined to comment. In particular, here: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
- Lon7 9y ago
  I hadn't read that Guillette article. David P Schmitt, the only one whos work was used in the memo doesn't exactly seem to agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. I think we can say that there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community. The memo painted a much different picture.
j9461701 9y ago
If that is a "great response" I'd hate to imagine what you consider a poor one. It's an informal reply on quora from someone we have no verification about that cites exactly one supporting scientific study - and that is about bird mating practices. The rest cites amazon bookstore pages, blogs, articles in general interest magazines, other quora responses, or wikipedia articles (which themselves actually undermine the point she was trying to make - eg skimming the stereotype threat article, consensus seems to be it isn't real). The rest is an attempt to justify calling the author a fascist racist sexist etc. etc. and thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?). My education is in physics and CS, so I am not qualified to judge what is accurate in something like evolutionary psychology. But when I see a paper that weasely, juking around the issue while engaging in personal attacks, it inclines me to believe the memo is scientifically valid and this sort of emotion based response is the only one available to its detractors.
- Lon7 9y ago
  > cites exactly one supporting scientific study I counted 10 supporting scientific studies, and a whole bunch of other articles that all included lots of references. > thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?) I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. She quotes what he wrote, and then shows why he is wrong, over and over again. She doesn't juke around the issue at all.
  - j9461701 9y ago
    >I counted 10 supporting scientific studies An impressive feat. Mind sharing them? And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. And also not links to Business Insider articles, Wikipedia articles, blogs, Amazon, or anything of the sort. You are aware you can't just make stuff up when I've read the article and examined its links right? >I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. You don't see how quoting a person, and then playing free association with their words to conclude they're some kind of crypto fascist fog Whistler is kind of ridiculous?
    - Lon7 9y ago
      > And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. You've already admitted that you are not qualified to judge what is accurate in this context, so why do you think you can now decide that some of the studies are nonsense? All of these studies support arguments she was making. In reverse order of appearance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003293 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna... http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.pdf http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.p... https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(16)00070-7 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-...

by Lon7 9y ago

js8 9y ago

> Enough time has passed that experts have had time to comprehend the original document, and it seems like James was only pretending to play openly Doesn't seem like that to me. The Suzanne Sadedin's answer (which I personally find kinda hard to understand, IMHO it avoids the core argument) was the only answer (of several I read) from an actual scientist that disagreed with what Damore has wrote. Other scientists' responses either agreed or declined to comment. In particular, here: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

Lon7 9y ago
I hadn't read that Guillette article. David P Schmitt, the only one whos work was used in the memo doesn't exactly seem to agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. I think we can say that there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community. The memo painted a much different picture.

j9461701 9y ago

If that is a "great response" I'd hate to imagine what you consider a poor one. It's an informal reply on quora from someone we have no verification about that cites exactly one supporting scientific study - and that is about bird mating practices. The rest cites amazon bookstore pages, blogs, articles in general interest magazines, other quora responses, or wikipedia articles (which themselves actually undermine the point she was trying to make - eg skimming the stereotype threat article, consensus seems to be it isn't real). The rest is an attempt to justify calling the author a fascist racist sexist etc. etc. and thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?). My education is in physics and CS, so I am not qualified to judge what is accurate in something like evolutionary psychology. But when I see a paper that weasely, juking around the issue while engaging in personal attacks, it inclines me to believe the memo is scientifically valid and this sort of emotion based response is the only one available to its detractors.

Lon7 9y ago
> cites exactly one supporting scientific study I counted 10 supporting scientific studies, and a whole bunch of other articles that all included lots of references. > thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?) I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. She quotes what he wrote, and then shows why he is wrong, over and over again. She doesn't juke around the issue at all.
- j9461701 9y ago
  >I counted 10 supporting scientific studies An impressive feat. Mind sharing them? And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. And also not links to Business Insider articles, Wikipedia articles, blogs, Amazon, or anything of the sort. You are aware you can't just make stuff up when I've read the article and examined its links right? >I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. You don't see how quoting a person, and then playing free association with their words to conclude they're some kind of crypto fascist fog Whistler is kind of ridiculous?
  - Lon7 9y ago
    > And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. You've already admitted that you are not qualified to judge what is accurate in this context, so why do you think you can now decide that some of the studies are nonsense? All of these studies support arguments she was making. In reverse order of appearance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003293 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna... http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.pdf http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.p... https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(16)00070-7 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-...