"You" - 82 counts "I" - 30 counts (cap letter) "we" - 44 counts "pdf" - 0 counts "http" - 0 counts "www" - 0 counts ".edu" or ".gov" - 0 counts I was ver

"You" - 82 counts "I" - 30 counts (cap letter) "we" - 44 counts "pdf" - 0 counts "http" - 0 counts "www" - 0 counts ".edu" or ".gov" - 0 counts I was very excited to read a rebuttal of the memo from the Economist. I've read arguments from both sides extensively and wanted to see The E's take. The original memo was almost naive in its argument; it's not hard to pick its argument chain apart. Then I got to the mid section of the letter and the whole letter just fall apart. Shame on the Economist for publishing such an ill-argued letter. The author listed 6 logical flaws in the original memo (even though the the author said he found 1 + 6 more flaws). The listed flaws overlap too much, and 3 of them can be directly rebutted using lines from the memo. "First, you ignore many other gender differences, basing your argument only on a few that you think support your conclusion. Second, you’re ignoring everything else that could explain the gender gap. Third, the gender differences you cite differ between countries and over time. Fourth, they don’t even support your argument, because you don’t seem to understand what makes a great software engineer. Fifth, you clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire. And sixth, even if you are right that more men than women are well-suited to the job of software engineer at google, you are wrong that taking steps to recruit more women is inherently unfair to men." The rest of the flaws I agree with (depending on the reading of the text), but there's no citation for anything. So even though the conclusion might be correct, the arguments are weak. BTW- "Fifth, you clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire." Such a great line. So "inter-dimensional" that I can't put this as mere ironic.