5 ms·

I'm sorry that most of the other replies to your comment end with sass or sarcasm. However, you are misunderstanding that quote if you think it implies that wom

I'm sorry that most of the other replies to your comment end with sass or sarcasm. However, you are misunderstanding that quote if you think it implies that women are biologically incapable of anything, or that _all_ women are biologically _less_ capable of anything. And by that I don't mean you're misunderstanding the intent or the subtext (what he really meant), I mean you are definitely not understanding the literal meaning of the quote.

verroq 6y ago
It's the same as the Richard Stallman case, some person (deliberately?) misinterperts words to suit their ideological agenda, and gets reported as news. Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.
three_seagrass 6y ago
I appreciate the measured response, thanks. Nobody is claiming that Damore said it applies to all women, in fact, he hides his argument behind an appeal to averages. He says that no individual women is less capable than men, but on average, women are. The same way that a racist would say, "I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." This is what I was referring to about weak-wording earlier. Damore claims that he's pro-diversity, then makes anti-diversity arguments. He gives the tone of a peer reviewed paper, but really it's a word doc with cherry picked citations. He claims that it's not all women, just distributed averages (so the typical woman) on a whole.
- verroq 6y ago
  Yet none of what you wrote supports an interpretation of "women are incapable of X" which is factually false and intellectually dishonest. Claiming he supports such a position is just dogwhistling. >Damore claims that he's pro-diversity, then makes anti-diversity arguments You choose to see any criticism of diversity (even constructive) as an ideological attack. That is the real issue.
- rcoveson 6y ago
  > The same way that someone would say, "I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." This is unfortunate but also true. Which is exactly what Damore might say about the distribution of this or that attribute among women being shifted from that of men. I don't see the point of lining up a true statement with Damore's when I believe you are claiming his statement is false. I also don't see what makes the wording "weak." There's nothing weak about trying to describe something in a nuanced way. And it's perfectly possible to be pro-diversity while also claiming what Damore has claimed, in the same way that it's possible to support BLM while also believing that more black people go to prison (your example). > He claims that it's not all women, just distributed averages (so the typical woman) on a whole. Please just say this next time. This is the hypothesis that Damore actually backed, and if it turned out to be true it wouldn't prove anything about any individual woman. It wouldn't even prove anything about any select subset of women, insofar as that subset was not selected randomly. It's positively tame compared to the claim that so many are quick to mis-attribute to Damore: "All women are less capable of X, Y, or Z"
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    The point of the this example: >"I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." Is that the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society. This is why we have diversity programs. James Damore's argument is that diversity programs are moot because he says there is no systemic bias against women. Just as if a racist were arguing against diversity programs because they say there is no systemic bias against black men, because really, on average black men "just go to prison more". Whether or not it's the average or the individual is a red herring. The point is Damore misrepresents data to argue against systemic bias - data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias he is arguing against.
    - rcoveson 6y ago
      > ...the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society. How is this rhetoric any better than Damore's? At best we can do studies that demonstrate the existence of bias, but we're nowhere near able to say that surely that bias is "the underlying cause of black people going to prison more" or that "this is why we have diversity problems". You're at least as bad as Damore. You want to believe that something is a certain way so you take inconclusive data and pretend like one hypothesis is not merely superior, but obviously, completely true. > data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias... How can data be culpable? And what data would this argument not invalidate? Has data every been collected by an fully un-biased society? Or can I, taking Damore's side, just throw out any data that shows that bias was the cause of a certain outcome and claim that, "this research is invalidated by the systemic bias in our society to attribute diversity problems to systemic bias."
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Beware of stating "he hides his argument"! A hidden argument is very hard to distinguish from an argument they didn't make in the first place, especially when it matches your preconceived belief. That's usually a sign that you're letting ideology blind you to observation, and serves in that sense a similar role to so-called "dogwhistles" that somehow tend to end up more audible and salient to one's enemies than allies.

verroq 6y ago

It's the same as the Richard Stallman case, some person (deliberately?) misinterperts words to suit their ideological agenda, and gets reported as news. Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

three_seagrass 6y ago

I appreciate the measured response, thanks. Nobody is claiming that Damore said it applies to all women, in fact, he hides his argument behind an appeal to averages. He says that no individual women is less capable than men, but on average, women are. The same way that a racist would say, "I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." This is what I was referring to about weak-wording earlier. Damore claims that he's pro-diversity, then makes anti-diversity arguments. He gives the tone of a peer reviewed paper, but really it's a word doc with cherry picked citations. He claims that it's not all women, just distributed averages (so the typical woman) on a whole.

verroq 6y ago
Yet none of what you wrote supports an interpretation of "women are incapable of X" which is factually false and intellectually dishonest. Claiming he supports such a position is just dogwhistling. >Damore claims that he's pro-diversity, then makes anti-diversity arguments You choose to see any criticism of diversity (even constructive) as an ideological attack. That is the real issue.
rcoveson 6y ago
> The same way that someone would say, "I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." This is unfortunate but also true. Which is exactly what Damore might say about the distribution of this or that attribute among women being shifted from that of men. I don't see the point of lining up a true statement with Damore's when I believe you are claiming his statement is false. I also don't see what makes the wording "weak." There's nothing weak about trying to describe something in a nuanced way. And it's perfectly possible to be pro-diversity while also claiming what Damore has claimed, in the same way that it's possible to support BLM while also believing that more black people go to prison (your example). > He claims that it's not all women, just distributed averages (so the typical woman) on a whole. Please just say this next time. This is the hypothesis that Damore actually backed, and if it turned out to be true it wouldn't prove anything about any individual woman. It wouldn't even prove anything about any select subset of women, insofar as that subset was not selected randomly. It's positively tame compared to the claim that so many are quick to mis-attribute to Damore: "All women are less capable of X, Y, or Z"
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  The point of the this example: >"I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more." Is that the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society. This is why we have diversity programs. James Damore's argument is that diversity programs are moot because he says there is no systemic bias against women. Just as if a racist were arguing against diversity programs because they say there is no systemic bias against black men, because really, on average black men "just go to prison more". Whether or not it's the average or the individual is a red herring. The point is Damore misrepresents data to argue against systemic bias - data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias he is arguing against.
  - rcoveson 6y ago
    > ...the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society. How is this rhetoric any better than Damore's? At best we can do studies that demonstrate the existence of bias, but we're nowhere near able to say that surely that bias is "the underlying cause of black people going to prison more" or that "this is why we have diversity problems". You're at least as bad as Damore. You want to believe that something is a certain way so you take inconclusive data and pretend like one hypothesis is not merely superior, but obviously, completely true. > data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias... How can data be culpable? And what data would this argument not invalidate? Has data every been collected by an fully un-biased society? Or can I, taking Damore's side, just throw out any data that shows that bias was the cause of a certain outcome and claim that, "this research is invalidated by the systemic bias in our society to attribute diversity problems to systemic bias."
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Beware of stating "he hides his argument"! A hidden argument is very hard to distinguish from an argument they didn't make in the first place, especially when it matches your preconceived belief. That's usually a sign that you're letting ideology blind you to observation, and serves in that sense a similar role to so-called "dogwhistles" that somehow tend to end up more audible and salient to one's enemies than allies.