Saying "in part" is still making a judgement in arguing biology is a factor. I agree he does say "possible" and "may" in a few places, but he's inconsistent.

Saying "in part" is still making a judgement in arguing biology is a factor. I agree he does say "possible" and "may" in a few places, but he's inconsistent. Overwhelmingly, he makes deterministic statements, including when he gives interviews (for example at 5:32 in one with CNN [1]) As the evolutionary biologist notes, 1. There are conflicting results with the research showing gender differences in personality traits 2. The research doesn't actually show that these trait differences are biological 3. "It is a massive leap to conclude that a slight difference in average personality must undermine women's professional abilities in software engineering" > And so on and so forth in tedious repetitiveness. The full response [2] is well worth a read. It is the most comprehensive point-by-point reply by a scientist to Damore to date. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam... [2] 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/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...