> ...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 rhe

> ...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."