3 ms·

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 t

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
Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine. No argument there. The author has a problem with James' interpretation of the science, and his speculation and arguments he makes based on this flawed interpretation. You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem 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. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever. As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary. In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic. Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant. The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc. I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.
- kottayam 9y ago
  I am not sure why nobody is referencing Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt of Heterodox academy. They are referencing a large number of meta studies on this topic. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
  - js8 9y ago
    Yeah, I have seen that yesterday too, it's a good summary. I think one of the important points is this: "The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability." Damore argued based on this, and I hold a similar view, that gender quotas should not be used, because they don't correspond to personal preferences. This has nothing to do with abilities.
  - Lon7 9y ago
    That's a great link! I've been looking for something like that. It confirms the criticisms of Damore cherry picking his sources. It appears that for almost everything he wrote there is both supporting and conflicting evidence. The fact the he only mentions the supporting evidence is a huge problem. I would expect better from a google engineer.

Lon7 9y ago

Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine. No argument there. The author has a problem with James' interpretation of the science, and his speculation and arguments he makes based on this flawed interpretation. You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem 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. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever. As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary. In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic. Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant. The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc. I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.

kottayam 9y ago
I am not sure why nobody is referencing Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt of Heterodox academy. They are referencing a large number of meta studies on this topic. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
- js8 9y ago
  Yeah, I have seen that yesterday too, it's a good summary. I think one of the important points is this: "The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability." Damore argued based on this, and I hold a similar view, that gender quotas should not be used, because they don't correspond to personal preferences. This has nothing to do with abilities.
- Lon7 9y ago
  That's a great link! I've been looking for something like that. It confirms the criticisms of Damore cherry picking his sources. It appears that for almost everything he wrote there is both supporting and conflicting evidence. The fact the he only mentions the supporting evidence is a huge problem. I would expect better from a google engineer.