4 ms·

> it's clear why she was fired >she was "probably" acting unprofessionally (emphasis mine) Those two statements are not congruent. Her statements on twitter

> it's clear why she was fired >she was "probably" acting unprofessionally (emphasis mine) Those two statements are not congruent. Her statements on twitter are her own, YOU have no idea how she acted professionally. As for James Damore, he pushed phrenological ideas as to why the disparity between men and women in tech/software engineering was ok. By his own written ideas he was displaying "right biases" (disparities between men/women or whites/racial minorities are natural and just) You post implies your biases very clearly.

macinjosh 6y ago
> As for James Damore, he pushed phrenological ideas as to why the disparity between men and women in tech/software engineering was ok. Damore's writings were based on peer reviewed scientific literature. Quite the opposite of "phrenology". The anti-science sentiments rising in society from anti-vaxers, anti-maskers, and disregard for biology (like the comment above) is somewhat frightening.
- John23832 6y ago
  I don't disregard science, nor practice any of that nonsense. I believe in science fully. Trying to attach me to those anti-scientific ideas is kind of asinine. I doubt you actually read what Damore wrote, you just agree with his idea. None of what Damore pushed was any more scientific in nature than phrenology. Take a look for yourself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Whenever he points to a biological origin, it's followed by a single study that doesn't come to the point that he's trying to make. It's a lot of "men are this, and women are that" with no substance behind it. If you're google, you can follow the short links, but most are dead.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    Your holding Damore to a far higher standard than th non-reproducible psych studies he was responding to, which were endorsed by the paid staff of a multi billion dollar corporation.
    - John23832 6y ago
      The are no "non-reproducible psych studies". There is Google taking an approach to diversity and inclusion that they see fit, and then there's Damore vocally disagreeing and making an argument backed by pseudoscience.

macinjosh 6y ago

> As for James Damore, he pushed phrenological ideas as to why the disparity between men and women in tech/software engineering was ok. Damore's writings were based on peer reviewed scientific literature. Quite the opposite of "phrenology". The anti-science sentiments rising in society from anti-vaxers, anti-maskers, and disregard for biology (like the comment above) is somewhat frightening.

John23832 6y ago
I don't disregard science, nor practice any of that nonsense. I believe in science fully. Trying to attach me to those anti-scientific ideas is kind of asinine. I doubt you actually read what Damore wrote, you just agree with his idea. None of what Damore pushed was any more scientific in nature than phrenology. Take a look for yourself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Whenever he points to a biological origin, it's followed by a single study that doesn't come to the point that he's trying to make. It's a lot of "men are this, and women are that" with no substance behind it. If you're google, you can follow the short links, but most are dead.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Your holding Damore to a far higher standard than th non-reproducible psych studies he was responding to, which were endorsed by the paid staff of a multi billion dollar corporation.
  - John23832 6y ago
    The are no "non-reproducible psych studies". There is Google taking an approach to diversity and inclusion that they see fit, and then there's Damore vocally disagreeing and making an argument backed by pseudoscience.