4 ms·

Depends what the implications of that statement were. I think assuming that women at Google have higher levels of neuroticism is fair, but once you start to pos

by glenda 6y ago

Depends what the implications of that statement were. I think assuming that women at Google have higher levels of neuroticism is fair, but once you start to posit that as an actionable truth is when real information is needed.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Please note the shifting goal posts. At the start of this comment thread you were saying that Damore's memo was certainly unscientific, and now you are arguing that there needs to be a higher bar for action than the fair assumptions that Damore made. Keep in mind that Damore is a single person giving feedback to a diversity course. He doesn't have the resources, time, or mandate to survey Google's employees to test whether or not this general trend holds. Perhaps, before acting on Damore's recommendations it would be a good idea to do some tests on Google's employees to see if general trends hold true in their specific subset - but that is a really different claim than the initial claim that Damore was unscientific. If Damore had written that smoking causes lung problems and therefore Google should start taking some actions to stop employees from smoking, it might be merited to do further tests to see if the link between smoking and lung problems holds true for Google employees as it does for people in general. It would not be merited to call Damore unscientific because he had not yet done that research prior to making his suggestion.
- glenda 6y ago
  It seems like he was cherry-picking studies that fit a personal theory he held before the feedback was ever requested. I would consider that to be unscientific.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    If he was cherry-picking studies then for each study he cited there would be multiple conflicting studies. Do you have examples of those?
oh_sigh 6y ago
The fact is that the same study says that men express more psychoticism than women. Do you think he would have been equally railed against if he brought that up in his paper?

by glenda 6y ago

ALittleLight 6y ago

Please note the shifting goal posts. At the start of this comment thread you were saying that Damore's memo was certainly unscientific, and now you are arguing that there needs to be a higher bar for action than the fair assumptions that Damore made. Keep in mind that Damore is a single person giving feedback to a diversity course. He doesn't have the resources, time, or mandate to survey Google's employees to test whether or not this general trend holds. Perhaps, before acting on Damore's recommendations it would be a good idea to do some tests on Google's employees to see if general trends hold true in their specific subset - but that is a really different claim than the initial claim that Damore was unscientific. If Damore had written that smoking causes lung problems and therefore Google should start taking some actions to stop employees from smoking, it might be merited to do further tests to see if the link between smoking and lung problems holds true for Google employees as it does for people in general. It would not be merited to call Damore unscientific because he had not yet done that research prior to making his suggestion.

glenda 6y ago
It seems like he was cherry-picking studies that fit a personal theory he held before the feedback was ever requested. I would consider that to be unscientific.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  If he was cherry-picking studies then for each study he cited there would be multiple conflicting studies. Do you have examples of those?

oh_sigh 6y ago

The fact is that the same study says that men express more psychoticism than women. Do you think he would have been equally railed against if he brought that up in his paper?