5 ms·

I don’t see what’s wrong with calling it political... it surely isn’t scientific. The opinions he expressed seem like naive political theories based on his unde

by glenda 6y ago

I don’t see what’s wrong with calling it political... it surely isn’t scientific. The opinions he expressed seem like naive political theories based on his understanding of gender and society, which is an extremely nuanced topic.

twomoretime 6y ago
What's naive is bending over backwards to pretend that men and women are identical, after millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution. It's absurd that this is even a debate in our society. Scientific? Everything we know about genetics, hormones, and psychology clearly points to gendered differences and if you objectively look at the data, at the very least you must concede that you cannot conflate inequality of outcomes with inequality of outcome opportunity without gratuitous handwaving. Progressivism in the US takes as a given that men in the past were backwards and ignorant - but there are literally tens of thousands of years of social wisdom in history that are being thrown away because people can't handle the fact that in this world there are no guarantees of equal ability across groups. Anyone who is offended by such a notion is hopelessly naive - but I suppose you can hardly blame someone after spending a lifetime indoctrinated to pretend that gendered differences magically disappear above the shoulders.
- glenda 6y ago
  I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    This appeal to authority is enormously frustrating when the authorities are also blindly political. Think for yourself. The physical differences between men and women are patently obvious, and how they translate to different performance in sports is clear. We understand why men and women are different physically - because specialization had strong selective pressure. Now why on earth would this specialization only apply to physical differences? And if you're still not convinced, and if the consistent studies showing differences in verbal/spatial IQ and the like aren't enough, how can we use brainscans to differentiate between cis and trans people? This is literally only political because, for this issue, one side in western politics is determined to deny reality in order to shape the world into what they think it should be. That's childish idealism - you cannot solve a "problem" without addressing it's actual causes.
    - glenda 6y ago
      I have my own opinions, which happen to be different from yours!
      - twomoretime 6y ago
        Except people are by default being told their opinions are incorrect because they disagree with the so called experts. Experts in a soft, non experimental, survey based scientific discipline. Soft sciences are institutional dogma because by and large there is no way to experimentally verify anything. This is a particular debate in which the establishment is clearly in the wrong to anyone who isn't determined to believe in a nonexistent equality.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      You should really read a little more history. There's a long, long tradition of "patently obvious" "science" that just happens to justify the continued dominance of whatever group is top at the moment. As I mentioned elsewhere, Kendi's "Stamped from the Beginning" is an excellent examination of the racial aspect of that.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    That's a dismissive viewpoint. To be consistent with your view, nobody should be commenting in this thread. Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct. It may go to explain why their views are the way they are, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a person is wrong about something scientific because they aren't a scientist, for instance.
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      >Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct Nor does their expertise preclude them from succumbing to personal or institutional biases.
      - bayonetz 6y ago
        Nor does it resign them to said biases.
  - will4274 6y ago
    > Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything. FWIW, Damore has a masters in systems biology. This fact was fairly widely reported. So, you can fall back on the facts instead of your own biases (what "strikes" you).
    - glenda 6y ago
      I'm not sure how that makes him any more qualified on the topic of diversity issues at Google
- ravenstine 6y ago
  It's absurd but, by and large, people don't actually care about science, let alone understand it. They may occasionally appreciate the rewards of science, but only when it makes them happy. When it sends a negative signal, people are quick to ignore science, or only pay attention to tidbits of science that reinforces their world view. It's not even a question of intelligence. Smart people all the time, including on this very site, fall prey to both anti-science and "scientism" at about the same rate. The only difference between a smart human and a dumb human in this space is the smart human has a bigger vocabulary and knows how to cherry-pick data. Damore might have been granted some more understanding if he had presented his memo to some scientists. Even then, there would have been a high probability that he would have been told to hush-hush or be asked to leave.
  - hackissimo123 6y ago
    > Damore might have been granted some more understanding if he had presented his memo to some scientists. Even then, there would have been a high probability that he would have been told to hush-hush or be asked to leave. FYI, here are responses to Damore's memo from a few different scientists with relevant expertise: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists...
mdorazio 6y ago
I'm guessing if you read the memo you only read a version with sources and data omitted. The original version was very much science-based, even if you disagree with the science or think it incomplete/biased.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Citing papers doesn’t make an opinion piece “scientific” or unpolitical. It just means the author did enough research to prop their opinion up. It’s a particular failing of self described rationalists that seeing citations means the goal was objective truth rather than supporting a pre-existing bias or opinion. Particularly when dealing with papers in harder to study fields that have been at the centre of the replication crisis. As with the SRE who tried to play epidemiologist the other day it pays to be skeptical about the evidence and opinions presented even if they are delivered with citations and in an academic tone. Especially when both are playing far outside their fields of expertise.
  - JSavageOne 6y ago
    I don't care what his pre-existing biases were, and that's not really the point. He wrote a paper and supported it with facts and sources. If you disagree with something, then dispute the facts/sources. I haven't seen a single comment in this post disagreeing with the memo that actually critiques any specific points in the memo. Every single criticism I've seen is more along the lines of "but he was being sexist". Ok, can't argue with that I guess.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      If you don’t care about the context the memo was written in you are just engaging in what I described. Essentially trying to veneer your preconceptions with the appearance of “science” and attempting to shift the burden of proof.
ALittleLight 6y ago
In what way is the Damore memo not scientific? It cites academic research, presents evidence, I think the claims it makes are actually the mainstream ones. I realize asking you to debunk the whole memo may be a bit much, so can you just point to the single most consequential unscientific part of it? I read the memo and was horrified by how badly people treated him because of it. To me it seems like a rational and well evidenced document.
- glenda 6y ago
  For example, claiming that “women have higher rates of neuroticism” is debatable. IMO, that kind of discussion is frankly uninteresting and unhelpful.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    No, it really isn't debatable. That's the widespread consensus view. Personality traits are judged based on responses to surveys. When you ask large groups of people the same surveys and evaluate them the same way you consistently find women score higher on neuroticism than men. This is a widely repeated finding that is consistent across generations. A paper on neuroticism in older women compared to older men - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/ "testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan." A paper trying to asses the genetic component to personality traits - http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf "Research has found observed phenotypic sex differences in the BFM. Women, for instance, tend to have higher mean levels of Agreeableness and Neuroticism than men (Chapman, Duberstein, Sörensen, & Lyness, 2007; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Feingold, 1994)." A paper looking at personality trait differences across the world and in other cultures - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12265 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12265 "In terms of the personality traits known as the Big Five, men tend to score lower than women in neuroticism and agreeableness" A paper looking at gender differences in neuroticism and extraversion across 30 different countries - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Differences_in_Extraversion_Neuroticism_and_Psychoticism_in_37_Nations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Dif... "Women obtained higher means than men on neuroticism in all countries, and men obtained higher means than women on psychoticism in 34 countries and on extraversion in 30 countries." A paper on neuroticism differences in men and women among college students - http://mpsi.umm.ac.id/files/file/723%20-%20728%20Djudiyah%20Dahlan.pdf http://mpsi.umm.ac.id/files/file/723%20-%20728%20Djudiyah%20... "Table 1 showed that there was significant difference of neuroticism level between males and females (t-test = 2.138, df =49, P<0.05). Males tended to have lower neuroticism personality level (Mean=111,833) than females (Mean=127.303). Thus the hypothesis that males have less neuroticism level than females was accepted." I could go on for a long time just finding different studies on this topic and quoting their results, but there is no need to. That women have higher rates of neuroticism is likely the least debatable and most scientific thing Damore asserted. Can you find a single study or paper where it was concluded that women had anything but higher levels of neuroticism? I trust that you will either have one or more such references, or you will admit that this claim is scientific and not really debatable. If you admit that, I would expect some revision of your general opinion given that this is an example of one of what you believed to be one of the more significant things Damore got wrong.
JSavageOne 6y ago
I just told you why it isn't political, you literally just ignored my comment. The whole point of the memo is to attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, thus it is not political. You can disagree with the contents of the memo, but that doesn't make it "political", or an expression of "opinions".
- glenda 6y ago
  I just told you why I disagree

by glenda 6y ago

twomoretime 6y ago

What's naive is bending over backwards to pretend that men and women are identical, after millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution. It's absurd that this is even a debate in our society. Scientific? Everything we know about genetics, hormones, and psychology clearly points to gendered differences and if you objectively look at the data, at the very least you must concede that you cannot conflate inequality of outcomes with inequality of outcome opportunity without gratuitous handwaving. Progressivism in the US takes as a given that men in the past were backwards and ignorant - but there are literally tens of thousands of years of social wisdom in history that are being thrown away because people can't handle the fact that in this world there are no guarantees of equal ability across groups. Anyone who is offended by such a notion is hopelessly naive - but I suppose you can hardly blame someone after spending a lifetime indoctrinated to pretend that gendered differences magically disappear above the shoulders.

glenda 6y ago
I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.
- twomoretime 6y ago
  This appeal to authority is enormously frustrating when the authorities are also blindly political. Think for yourself. The physical differences between men and women are patently obvious, and how they translate to different performance in sports is clear. We understand why men and women are different physically - because specialization had strong selective pressure. Now why on earth would this specialization only apply to physical differences? And if you're still not convinced, and if the consistent studies showing differences in verbal/spatial IQ and the like aren't enough, how can we use brainscans to differentiate between cis and trans people? This is literally only political because, for this issue, one side in western politics is determined to deny reality in order to shape the world into what they think it should be. That's childish idealism - you cannot solve a "problem" without addressing it's actual causes.
  - glenda 6y ago
    I have my own opinions, which happen to be different from yours!
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      Except people are by default being told their opinions are incorrect because they disagree with the so called experts. Experts in a soft, non experimental, survey based scientific discipline. Soft sciences are institutional dogma because by and large there is no way to experimentally verify anything. This is a particular debate in which the establishment is clearly in the wrong to anyone who isn't determined to believe in a nonexistent equality.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    You should really read a little more history. There's a long, long tradition of "patently obvious" "science" that just happens to justify the continued dominance of whatever group is top at the moment. As I mentioned elsewhere, Kendi's "Stamped from the Beginning" is an excellent examination of the racial aspect of that.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  That's a dismissive viewpoint. To be consistent with your view, nobody should be commenting in this thread. Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct. It may go to explain why their views are the way they are, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a person is wrong about something scientific because they aren't a scientist, for instance.
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    >Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct Nor does their expertise preclude them from succumbing to personal or institutional biases.
    - bayonetz 6y ago
      Nor does it resign them to said biases.
- will4274 6y ago
  > Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything. FWIW, Damore has a masters in systems biology. This fact was fairly widely reported. So, you can fall back on the facts instead of your own biases (what "strikes" you).
  - glenda 6y ago
    I'm not sure how that makes him any more qualified on the topic of diversity issues at Google
ravenstine 6y ago
It's absurd but, by and large, people don't actually care about science, let alone understand it. They may occasionally appreciate the rewards of science, but only when it makes them happy. When it sends a negative signal, people are quick to ignore science, or only pay attention to tidbits of science that reinforces their world view. It's not even a question of intelligence. Smart people all the time, including on this very site, fall prey to both anti-science and "scientism" at about the same rate. The only difference between a smart human and a dumb human in this space is the smart human has a bigger vocabulary and knows how to cherry-pick data. Damore might have been granted some more understanding if he had presented his memo to some scientists. Even then, there would have been a high probability that he would have been told to hush-hush or be asked to leave.
- hackissimo123 6y ago
  > Damore might have been granted some more understanding if he had presented his memo to some scientists. Even then, there would have been a high probability that he would have been told to hush-hush or be asked to leave. FYI, here are responses to Damore's memo from a few different scientists with relevant expertise: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists...

mdorazio 6y ago

I'm guessing if you read the memo you only read a version with sources and data omitted. The original version was very much science-based, even if you disagree with the science or think it incomplete/biased.

meheleventyone 6y ago
Citing papers doesn’t make an opinion piece “scientific” or unpolitical. It just means the author did enough research to prop their opinion up. It’s a particular failing of self described rationalists that seeing citations means the goal was objective truth rather than supporting a pre-existing bias or opinion. Particularly when dealing with papers in harder to study fields that have been at the centre of the replication crisis. As with the SRE who tried to play epidemiologist the other day it pays to be skeptical about the evidence and opinions presented even if they are delivered with citations and in an academic tone. Especially when both are playing far outside their fields of expertise.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  I don't care what his pre-existing biases were, and that's not really the point. He wrote a paper and supported it with facts and sources. If you disagree with something, then dispute the facts/sources. I haven't seen a single comment in this post disagreeing with the memo that actually critiques any specific points in the memo. Every single criticism I've seen is more along the lines of "but he was being sexist". Ok, can't argue with that I guess.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    If you don’t care about the context the memo was written in you are just engaging in what I described. Essentially trying to veneer your preconceptions with the appearance of “science” and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

ALittleLight 6y ago

In what way is the Damore memo not scientific? It cites academic research, presents evidence, I think the claims it makes are actually the mainstream ones. I realize asking you to debunk the whole memo may be a bit much, so can you just point to the single most consequential unscientific part of it? I read the memo and was horrified by how badly people treated him because of it. To me it seems like a rational and well evidenced document.

glenda 6y ago
For example, claiming that “women have higher rates of neuroticism” is debatable. IMO, that kind of discussion is frankly uninteresting and unhelpful.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  No, it really isn't debatable. That's the widespread consensus view. Personality traits are judged based on responses to surveys. When you ask large groups of people the same surveys and evaluate them the same way you consistently find women score higher on neuroticism than men. This is a widely repeated finding that is consistent across generations. A paper on neuroticism in older women compared to older men - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/ "testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan." A paper trying to asses the genetic component to personality traits - http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf "Research has found observed phenotypic sex differences in the BFM. Women, for instance, tend to have higher mean levels of Agreeableness and Neuroticism than men (Chapman, Duberstein, Sörensen, & Lyness, 2007; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Feingold, 1994)." A paper looking at personality trait differences across the world and in other cultures - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12265 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12265 "In terms of the personality traits known as the Big Five, men tend to score lower than women in neuroticism and agreeableness" A paper looking at gender differences in neuroticism and extraversion across 30 different countries - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Differences_in_Extraversion_Neuroticism_and_Psychoticism_in_37_Nations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Dif... "Women obtained higher means than men on neuroticism in all countries, and men obtained higher means than women on psychoticism in 34 countries and on extraversion in 30 countries." A paper on neuroticism differences in men and women among college students - http://mpsi.umm.ac.id/files/file/723%20-%20728%20Djudiyah%20Dahlan.pdf http://mpsi.umm.ac.id/files/file/723%20-%20728%20Djudiyah%20... "Table 1 showed that there was significant difference of neuroticism level between males and females (t-test = 2.138, df =49, P<0.05). Males tended to have lower neuroticism personality level (Mean=111,833) than females (Mean=127.303). Thus the hypothesis that males have less neuroticism level than females was accepted." I could go on for a long time just finding different studies on this topic and quoting their results, but there is no need to. That women have higher rates of neuroticism is likely the least debatable and most scientific thing Damore asserted. Can you find a single study or paper where it was concluded that women had anything but higher levels of neuroticism? I trust that you will either have one or more such references, or you will admit that this claim is scientific and not really debatable. If you admit that, I would expect some revision of your general opinion given that this is an example of one of what you believed to be one of the more significant things Damore got wrong.

JSavageOne 6y ago

I just told you why it isn't political, you literally just ignored my comment. The whole point of the memo is to attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, thus it is not political. You can disagree with the contents of the memo, but that doesn't make it "political", or an expression of "opinions".

glenda 6y ago
I just told you why I disagree