It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how

It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics. This is the argument that Damore was making, that there are less women in engineering and leadership positions not because of social constructs, but because of biological factors. The evidence he provided did not demonstrate ability differences. Sure, differences in preferences, yes, but those could be caused by the social constructs he was arguing against, and he didn't want to admit that. Edit: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?