4 ms·

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

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-...
    - j9461701 9y ago
      To be clear: If that quora post had been a dispassionate refutation, or even just a nest of links to directly pertinent scientific studies - I'd have believed the author. Or at least declared myself neutral in the debate, as it is outside my area of expertise. But an article that sleazy and loaded with weasel words and underhanded rhetorical tactics, that dances that much around the points being discussed - no one who has the facts on their side argues like that. Reading that post from beginning to end actually did more to convince me Damore was right than any other piece of writing I've seen thus far on the subject. As to your links: Read what you're trying to cite before blinding citing it. Here is some of the titles of the papers you just linked to: No relationship between prenatal androgen exposure and autistic traits The origins of agriculture: Population growth during a period of declining health Human Health and the Neolithic Revolution: an Overview of Impacts of the Agricultural Transition on Oral Health, Epidemiology, and the Human Body Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women Cuckolded Fathers Rare in Human Populations As I said, basically pure none sense. The quora post is trying to blindside people with number of sources, to hide the fact they have absolutely no quality in sources. Indeed, even the most directly pertinent link didn't really talk about the core issues raised in the memo. It instead discussed github pull requests vs. gender, which while far more related to the subject at hand than autistic dentistry (it is about sexism and the tech community), does not actually address the specific points raised by Damore's letter or support the arguments she was trying to make. Incidentally, that study is nicely debunked here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-exci...

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-...
  - j9461701 9y ago
    To be clear: If that quora post had been a dispassionate refutation, or even just a nest of links to directly pertinent scientific studies - I'd have believed the author. Or at least declared myself neutral in the debate, as it is outside my area of expertise. But an article that sleazy and loaded with weasel words and underhanded rhetorical tactics, that dances that much around the points being discussed - no one who has the facts on their side argues like that. Reading that post from beginning to end actually did more to convince me Damore was right than any other piece of writing I've seen thus far on the subject. As to your links: Read what you're trying to cite before blinding citing it. Here is some of the titles of the papers you just linked to: No relationship between prenatal androgen exposure and autistic traits The origins of agriculture: Population growth during a period of declining health Human Health and the Neolithic Revolution: an Overview of Impacts of the Agricultural Transition on Oral Health, Epidemiology, and the Human Body Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women Cuckolded Fathers Rare in Human Populations As I said, basically pure none sense. The quora post is trying to blindside people with number of sources, to hide the fact they have absolutely no quality in sources. Indeed, even the most directly pertinent link didn't really talk about the core issues raised in the memo. It instead discussed github pull requests vs. gender, which while far more related to the subject at hand than autistic dentistry (it is about sexism and the tech community), does not actually address the specific points raised by Damore's letter or support the arguments she was trying to make. Incidentally, that study is nicely debunked here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-exci...