3 ms·

I don't think it was just the "harmless claim" that was the issue. Many of his points were objectionable if not outright offensive. The obvious example of an

I don't think it was just the "harmless claim" that was the issue. Many of his points were objectionable if not outright offensive. The obvious example of an offensive claim is that women are more prone to be neurotic. Also, can you really assert that you've checked your biases if you claim that people who agree with you (conservatives) are "pragmatic" while those who disagree (liberals) are "idealistic". I'm sorry, but that is complete and total BS. It's not hard to see that there are pragmatists and ideologues in both the liberal and conservative political movements. As a white male engineer, I will tell you thing the that most white dudes like me fail to understand about micro-agressions- and the document was chock full of them-is that they are not really significant when they only happen once, in isolation, it is the constant, droning repetition of them that makes them harmful. Asking someone where they're from isn't offensive when considered in isolation. But if 90% of the white people you meet ask you this immediately, while it comes up only occasionally or late in the conversation when meeting other people, it makes you wonder. One thing my mixed race friends get asked a lot by white people is "what are you?". At first I found that hard to believe, but I've seen it happen over and over again--random chitchat at the park with a nice lady who stopped to pet my dog; for some reason she has to ask my friend "what are you?" She's too nice to say "not racist, how about you?" or anything harsh in response, but it makes my blood boil. Imagine being expected to defend and define your presence everywhere you go. So, yeah, the idea was harmless. The presentation was part of the constant barrage of gatekeeping behavior that women and people of color are sick of dealing with. That's why it's offensive, that's why people are angry.

axlprose 9y ago
> The obvious example of an offensive claim is that women are more prone to be neurotic. As a personality researcher, I feel obligated to chime in and clarify that the memo wasn't stating that women are "neurotic", neither in the colloquial nor clinical sense, but that they are on average higher in the trait of Neuroticism in the Big 5 personality dimensions[0], which is a very specific and well defined term, and the scientific literature actually does support that statement when it is presented using those academic definitions. There's nothing opinionated about this, just as much as saying that men on average test higher in the trait of 'Conscientiousness' according to the same model; they're just population statistics based on the most reliable personality measure we have in the field of psychology today. It is a plain misunderstanding of the academic term to suggest that the memo says women are "neurotic" in any other way. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  He uses this result to claim they are less able (on average) to deal with stress and that's why men have better paying jobs though. I believe autistic people also score higher on that neurotic scale, so it's ironic someone who self-identifies as being on the spectrum would highlight that result and, given the general stereotypes, for it to be held up as a difference from other software professionals
  - exodust 9y ago
    Well he does cite "the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist". If that's true, the female employees at Google themselves contributed to a meaningful statistic behind the claim. He goes onto mention that men take on dangerous high stress jobs in far greater numbers than women, such as coal mining and fire fighting. If men account for 93% of work related deaths, it says a lot about their drive for that sort of work. No need to take offence. It's just data.
- chimprich 9y ago
  Quoting from the memo itself, "Women, on average, have more: [...] Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)". I don't believe there is any other context to it. It is not at all clear to me that the author is not referring to neuroticism in the colloquial or clinical sense. If he did want to use such a potentially emotionally-loaded term in that sense he should have made it clear how he was using it.
  - collyw 9y ago
    He referenced a paper about it. That provided enough context for me to deduce that he was talking about the clinical sense.
    - chimprich 9y ago
      I looked up the memo (assuming I have the found the original version; I checked several and they all claim to be the unedited version) and it links to a general Wikipedia article about the term.
Seenti 9y ago
Women on average score higher on neuroticism. This is uncontroversial. Neuroticism is associated with some positive outcomes, like longer lifespan. It is not a negative trait, as you might think by the connotations the term has in nonclinical contexts. You would know all this if you did some fact-checking. The carelessness with which you approach his claims is typical and indicative of a much larger problem.
- collyw 9y ago
  >This is uncontroversial. Have a look at the comments its being taken as an insult.
  - exodust 9y ago
    Yes but Seenti has a good point, it's not necessarily a negative trait. The memo could have explained this, if he didn't want so much outrage. The guy is methodical and very clear, but probably could have padded out the information with some disclaimers. His interviews since clearly show him as respectful and a nice guy, not at all the kind you'd expect to be sexist or bigoted.
ScottBurson 9y ago
I think this is a very good post. It's too bad people seem to have seized on the fact that you weren't aware that "neurotic" is a technical term in psychology. Since it's a word that has also been part of popular culture for decades, with a rather derogatory connotation, I think this is understandable, and I don't think Damore should have used it. I hadn't heard about people asking "what are you?". That is indeed infuriating. I don't think such people deserve any answer beyond "human".

axlprose 9y ago

> The obvious example of an offensive claim is that women are more prone to be neurotic. As a personality researcher, I feel obligated to chime in and clarify that the memo wasn't stating that women are "neurotic", neither in the colloquial nor clinical sense, but that they are on average higher in the trait of Neuroticism in the Big 5 personality dimensions[0], which is a very specific and well defined term, and the scientific literature actually does support that statement when it is presented using those academic definitions. There's nothing opinionated about this, just as much as saying that men on average test higher in the trait of 'Conscientiousness' according to the same model; they're just population statistics based on the most reliable personality measure we have in the field of psychology today. It is a plain misunderstanding of the academic term to suggest that the memo says women are "neurotic" in any other way. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
He uses this result to claim they are less able (on average) to deal with stress and that's why men have better paying jobs though. I believe autistic people also score higher on that neurotic scale, so it's ironic someone who self-identifies as being on the spectrum would highlight that result and, given the general stereotypes, for it to be held up as a difference from other software professionals
- exodust 9y ago
  Well he does cite "the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist". If that's true, the female employees at Google themselves contributed to a meaningful statistic behind the claim. He goes onto mention that men take on dangerous high stress jobs in far greater numbers than women, such as coal mining and fire fighting. If men account for 93% of work related deaths, it says a lot about their drive for that sort of work. No need to take offence. It's just data.
chimprich 9y ago
Quoting from the memo itself, "Women, on average, have more: [...] Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)". I don't believe there is any other context to it. It is not at all clear to me that the author is not referring to neuroticism in the colloquial or clinical sense. If he did want to use such a potentially emotionally-loaded term in that sense he should have made it clear how he was using it.
- collyw 9y ago
  He referenced a paper about it. That provided enough context for me to deduce that he was talking about the clinical sense.
  - chimprich 9y ago
    I looked up the memo (assuming I have the found the original version; I checked several and they all claim to be the unedited version) and it links to a general Wikipedia article about the term.

Seenti 9y ago

Women on average score higher on neuroticism. This is uncontroversial. Neuroticism is associated with some positive outcomes, like longer lifespan. It is not a negative trait, as you might think by the connotations the term has in nonclinical contexts. You would know all this if you did some fact-checking. The carelessness with which you approach his claims is typical and indicative of a much larger problem.

collyw 9y ago
>This is uncontroversial. Have a look at the comments its being taken as an insult.
- exodust 9y ago
  Yes but Seenti has a good point, it's not necessarily a negative trait. The memo could have explained this, if he didn't want so much outrage. The guy is methodical and very clear, but probably could have padded out the information with some disclaimers. His interviews since clearly show him as respectful and a nice guy, not at all the kind you'd expect to be sexist or bigoted.

ScottBurson 9y ago

I think this is a very good post. It's too bad people seem to have seized on the fact that you weren't aware that "neurotic" is a technical term in psychology. Since it's a word that has also been part of popular culture for decades, with a rather derogatory connotation, I think this is understandable, and I don't think Damore should have used it. I hadn't heard about people asking "what are you?". That is indeed infuriating. I don't think such people deserve any answer beyond "human".