3 ms·

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Ju

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. > Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. The problem is lately a lot of people make claims based on nothing else than their "intuition" and they expect people to accept it as a "valid opinion".

Houshalter 9y ago
>Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. I'd love a source on that, because as far as I remember most of the stuff he referenced wasn't very controversial. E.g. one of his biggest points was that men and women have statistically different five factor personality distributions. >Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. Sure. The problem is I strongly disagree with you about what the "objective observable truth" is.
ghostcluster 9y ago
> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies They weren't. In fact you don't even need to look at studies, you can look at raw standardized test scores and see this is true.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  I keep bringing this up: if you applied the same standards in Communist Russia, you would've gotten completely different results. Turns out it's not just Nature that defines behavior, there's a lot of Nurture going on in there.
backpropaganda 9y ago
> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. This is a factually incorrect. Please try to introspect whether you're saying this because you want Damore to be wrong, instead of attempting to ascertain whether he was actually wrong.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Oh, I introspected enough. I think you need to start doing some introspection on why Damore launches a pre-emptive attack on a non-existing problem, and why you are buying into his argument.

Houshalter 9y ago

>Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. I'd love a source on that, because as far as I remember most of the stuff he referenced wasn't very controversial. E.g. one of his biggest points was that men and women have statistically different five factor personality distributions. >Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. Sure. The problem is I strongly disagree with you about what the "objective observable truth" is.

ghostcluster 9y ago

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies They weren't. In fact you don't even need to look at studies, you can look at raw standardized test scores and see this is true.

dguaraglia 9y ago
I keep bringing this up: if you applied the same standards in Communist Russia, you would've gotten completely different results. Turns out it's not just Nature that defines behavior, there's a lot of Nurture going on in there.

backpropaganda 9y ago

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. This is a factually incorrect. Please try to introspect whether you're saying this because you want Damore to be wrong, instead of attempting to ascertain whether he was actually wrong.

dguaraglia 9y ago
Oh, I introspected enough. I think you need to start doing some introspection on why Damore launches a pre-emptive attack on a non-existing problem, and why you are buying into his argument.