> Ok, no one owes anyone a debate, unless... I'd like... This is still just about what you'd like to happen. The rest of that argument is circular. > Please d

> Ok, no one owes anyone a debate, unless... I'd like... This is still just about what you'd like to happen. The rest of that argument is circular. > Please don't do this. What he claimed was that women have less inclination... Damore specifically mentions "abilities" although others have debated his exact intention in that line. I don't see value in reopening that. Regardless, what you're missing is that interest, ability and environment are far from mutually exclusive traits. See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15026234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15026234 > Why? All he did was put forth evidence and suggest that 50/50 might not be ideal... Because Damore went as far as policy changes. To make an HR policy you need objectives, or at least direction... to know whether you should be aiming for a 49:51 gender ratio or a 10:90 gender ratio. If there's no proposed effect size how does Google's HR team know if they're heading in the right direction? Some people may not want employers like Google to get into 'social engineering' as Damore puts it, but the reality is that there's a mountain of evidence that hiring bias has a large effect, so the idea that a company like Google wouldn't try to measure and optimise in that area is clearly not going to fly.