Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity p

Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity programs at Google. It is not nessasary to provide a complete account of a situtaion to point out flaws in an existing account. It is not nessasary to have a complete account in order to improve the existing account. There are some really hard questions to answer here. We do not answer hard questions by locking ourselves in a room until we figure it all out and write up a paper to present to the world. We answer hard questions by making incremental progress and sharing and collaborating with that progress so we can work with others to find the answers. Damore's mistake was thinking that the diversity advocates were interested in a good faith discussion, or evidence based policy.