3 ms·

That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: th

That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool. It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.

bduerst 9y ago
Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.
- moduspol 9y ago
  > Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context. > Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement. The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors. And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers. Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    If you have to insert your own comments to read between the lines of Damore's memo, then that is the definition of selective interpretation.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      If you have to quote statements out of context and attack your own misintrepetations of them, you’re not being intellectually honest.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  No evidence? The number of women who leave their career to become full-time childcare givers far out number men, even among women in high level career tracks.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
You are arguing against your own claims. Damore claimed that women are not underrepresented at Google hiring, after considering the explanatory factors. You explained why the affirmative action diversity hiring policy is unnecessary.

bduerst 9y ago

Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.

moduspol 9y ago
> Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context. > Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement. The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors. And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers. Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
- bduerst 9y ago
  If you have to insert your own comments to read between the lines of Damore's memo, then that is the definition of selective interpretation.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    If you have to quote statements out of context and attack your own misintrepetations of them, you’re not being intellectually honest.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
No evidence? The number of women who leave their career to become full-time childcare givers far out number men, even among women in high level career tracks.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

You are arguing against your own claims. Damore claimed that women are not underrepresented at Google hiring, after considering the explanatory factors. You explained why the affirmative action diversity hiring policy is unnecessary.