4 ms·

There is quite a distance between: "We cannot rule out biological causes" and "We should base our HR policy on this speculative research".

• mpweiher 9y ago
  "We should not base our corporate policy on the completely unproven and highly unlikely assumption that oppression is the only possible cause of unequal representation" There, fixed that for you. Also, the research is not at all speculative, quite the opposite. It is immeasurably more solid than the blind assertion that unequal representation is caused entirely/solely by oppression/discrimination etc., for which there is very little evidence overall, and virtually none that holds up to any sort of scrutiny.
  • andrewprock 9y ago
    Given that there is no known mechanism, characterizing it as "the opposite of speculative" seems rather naive.
    • mpweiher 9y ago
      Sorry, I can't parse this. Are you saying that until we have a complete understanding of how the brain and mind work, all psychological research is essentially worthless?
      • andrewprock 9y ago
        On the contrary, I'm saying that speculative research probably isn't suitable for crafting HR policies.
        • mpweiher 9y ago
          So you agree with James. Glad we could clear that up. Background: there is little to no evidence for the assertion that discrimination/oppression is the sole cause of the under-representation of women in tech, but that assertion is the basis of the HR policies that Damore criticized. In fact, the evidence that it is even a contributing factor is at best scant/anecdotal. The evidence that Damore cited is incomparably more solid.