4 ms·

Fair point. For sure the fate that befell him did nothing to change his opinions.

by qubex 9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago
I'd suggest that someone with such a blinkered pseudoscience view of the world would be unlikely to have his opinions changed by anything sort of a mind-altering epiphany (he's basically a sexual equality flat-earther, really.)
- qubex 9y ago
  Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Did you read the referenced material? Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I ask because that's a necessary step before declaring something to be ’pseudoscience’ which it might well be. If you have not, you are potentially falling victim to the inherent bias that this sub-tread is all about.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Yes. > Did you read the referenced material? Enough to know that it didn't support the claims he was making. > Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I also read several articles by biologists (both evolutionary and not) who pointed out that his claims were pseudo-scientific nonsense. Did you? As far as I'm aware, only 4 scientists* have supported him; only one of those had any credentials; and she wasn't exactly an expert in any of the fields.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    Mmm... you are correct that the memo is subtler than the media hysteria. However, not all of the memo's referenced material was top notch. Worst was, um, a "non-feminist" Wordpress blog to support his claim of men being labeled as "misogynist and whiners" when men complain about gender issues. (https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/ https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/) I can't even find who the author is here. In fact, I would've preferred all the op-ed / journalism to have been cut out and more scientific links used if they exist. EG: In a more science-oriented analysis, the links to the Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, Boston Review, and the Chicago Reader (while quality media outlets as far as I know) would not be the best choice to lean on. Same for the City Journal, which is a publication of the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The link to the New York Post (a populist tabloid) to support his assertion of liberal campus bias was the worst sourcing of this type. Other links are more subtle, but problematic if your goal is convincing the other side of your opinion. I'd put, for instance, the link to Warren Farrell (for women having salaries lower than men) in that department. These days he is strongly aligned with the "men's rights activist" movement. This isn't a "bad" link like the Wordpress blog, Warren Farrell has made some interesting points in the past. But Warren Farrell is strongly attached on one side of politics. Unless this is balanced with equal reference from the other political side, it just makes it easier for people to blindly toss this paper into the "MRA" bin and be done, like many ended up doing.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      > Worst was, um, a "non-feminist" Wordpress blog to support his claim of men being labeled as "misogynist and whiners" when men complain about gender issues. (https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/ https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/) I can't even find who the author is here. Iffy log aside, aren't men who "complain about gender issues" typically "labeled as 'misogynist and whiners'"? Admittedly, that's just how sexist men have typically labeled women who complain about gender issues as haters and whiners. But still, polarization is not helpful. Also, I'm not, by the way, endorsing any of Damore's references. I'm pointing to the tone typically seen in responses to such arguments. It's too bad that these issues can't be discussed without all of the polarization.

Fair point. For sure the fate that befell him did nothing to change his opinions.

by qubex 9y ago

Fair point. For sure the fate that befell him did nothing to change his opinions.

I'd suggest that someone with such a blinkered pseudoscience view of the world would be unlikely to have his opinions changed by anything sort of a mind-altering epiphany (he's basically a sexual equality flat-earther, really.)

qubex 9y ago
Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Did you read the referenced material? Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I ask because that's a necessary step before declaring something to be ’pseudoscience’ which it might well be. If you have not, you are potentially falling victim to the inherent bias that this sub-tread is all about.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Yes. > Did you read the referenced material? Enough to know that it didn't support the claims he was making. > Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I also read several articles by biologists (both evolutionary and not) who pointed out that his claims were pseudo-scientific nonsense. Did you? As far as I'm aware, only 4 scientists* have supported him; only one of those had any credentials; and she wasn't exactly an expert in any of the fields.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  Mmm... you are correct that the memo is subtler than the media hysteria. However, not all of the memo's referenced material was top notch. Worst was, um, a "non-feminist" Wordpress blog to support his claim of men being labeled as "misogynist and whiners" when men complain about gender issues. (https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/ https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/) I can't even find who the author is here. In fact, I would've preferred all the op-ed / journalism to have been cut out and more scientific links used if they exist. EG: In a more science-oriented analysis, the links to the Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, Boston Review, and the Chicago Reader (while quality media outlets as far as I know) would not be the best choice to lean on. Same for the City Journal, which is a publication of the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The link to the New York Post (a populist tabloid) to support his assertion of liberal campus bias was the worst sourcing of this type. Other links are more subtle, but problematic if your goal is convincing the other side of your opinion. I'd put, for instance, the link to Warren Farrell (for women having salaries lower than men) in that department. These days he is strongly aligned with the "men's rights activist" movement. This isn't a "bad" link like the Wordpress blog, Warren Farrell has made some interesting points in the past. But Warren Farrell is strongly attached on one side of politics. Unless this is balanced with equal reference from the other political side, it just makes it easier for people to blindly toss this paper into the "MRA" bin and be done, like many ended up doing.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    > Worst was, um, a "non-feminist" Wordpress blog to support his claim of men being labeled as "misogynist and whiners" when men complain about gender issues. (https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/ https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/) I can't even find who the author is here. Iffy log aside, aren't men who "complain about gender issues" typically "labeled as 'misogynist and whiners'"? Admittedly, that's just how sexist men have typically labeled women who complain about gender issues as haters and whiners. But still, polarization is not helpful. Also, I'm not, by the way, endorsing any of Damore's references. I'm pointing to the tone typically seen in responses to such arguments. It's too bad that these issues can't be discussed without all of the polarization.