4 ms·
Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. Making a lot of noise about 'facts' doesn't help here, in fact it does the o
by brian-armstrong 9y ago
Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. Making a lot of noise about 'facts' doesn't help here, in fact it does the opposite. So it seems your stand here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
- ThomPete 9y agoCan you give an example? Whether you find my stand irrelevant or not just because you don't agree with it, is telling and symptomatic for this discussion. Why isn't my stand relevant, what is it you know for a fact that is pseudoscientific and even if it was the case, are you going to fire people for believing in God and being against gay marriage because it's anti-scientific. Sounds like an anti-ellectual position to me.
- stcredzero 9y agoSome of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. One of the cited studies from the Damore memo was done across 55 countries, and effectively has a P value which is eyebrow-raisingly high. (They used another stats test.) It's definitely an important result, and is acknowledged as such by a big swathe of Psychology academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
- joshuamorton 9y agoSure, but just because I cite a study doesn't mean that the conclusions I make are valid. You seem to be saying that because Damore has citations in his memo it is ironclad (or perhaps you think that people who disagree with it disagree with every word of it). Neither of those things are the case. There are subsections of the memo that are both objectionable and unscientific. That he has some things that are science-y does not make the entire document wholly unobjectionable.