1. 11
  1.  

  2. 4

    There is good evidence for dozens of such differences between the average man and average woman.

    You’re wrong. Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”

    So basically the economist knows he’s wrong because even though he’s factually right and they admitted to it earlier, the economist reached into his mind and divined his intention and then by following the simple logic that factual truth state is dependent on the intention of those who speak them, that Damore is actually wrong.

    The mind is boggled.

    1. 3

      I think the author is a bit sloppy but my interpretation was that “You’re wrong” is in reference to his his conclusions, not necessarily his inputs. Note that the article goes on for a fair bit after the sentences you’ve quoted and describe the various ways the author believes Damore is wrong and what the author believes he is wrong about.

      1. 4

        Do they not teach basic logic in CS anymore? If you state “science proves P therefore Q”, then the response “You are right about P, but the implication is false” is perfectly sensible. Example: “Science proves that the sun rises in the east, therefore Britannia is chosen by God to rule the waves. “ I can agree with your statement about the sun and consider your claimed implication to be a bunch of crap. Similarly, if we are kind to Damore, we can consider his claim to be “science proves men and women are different” - which is uncontroversial. It’s the implications he seeks to draw from that assertion that are badly founded. If we are not leaning over backwards to be kind to Damore, however, we might notice that he also, for example, asserts that women spend more money than men!

        1. 1

          If we are not leaning over backwards to be kind to Damore, however, we might notice that he also, for example, asserts that women spend more money than men!

          Given their longer lifespan and higher insurance costs, as well as the documented premium they pay for various personal items (pink markup nonsense on, say, razors), this is not an unreasonable assertion.

      2. 3

        Well, I thought it actually set out to offer an argument – it does seem valid to say he picked only facts in support of his case (and spent limited time considering alternative explanations, too?).

        But, I agree it’s probably not the best way to do so.

        If you didn’t read it already, these comments from women at Google are wortth your time. They’re a better starting point for the debate. (It helps that they haven’t chosen to write in the format of “here’s what we’d say to James Damore after firing him”)

        https://blog.ycombinator.com/ask-a-female-engineer-thoughts-on-the-google-memo/

        1. 2

          Objectivity has no place in the world anymore.

          There is good evidence for dozens of such differences [1] between the average man and average woman. And as a matter of pure logic, you are correct that the gender gap in our team of software engineers is not of itself proof of sexism or discrimination.

          [1] differences in the average abilities, aptitudes and interests of men and women

          So they start out by acknowledging that the science supports Damore’s claims.

          You’re wrong. Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”—seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe. It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere.

          • But he’s wrong because The Economist says so.
          • He’s guilty of “motivated reasoning” because The Economist says so.
          • It was derogatory to women because The Economist says so.

          So the science supports Damore’s case, “you’re wrong” is not an argument, but Damore is to be crucified anyway.

          This article just makes a bunch of claims that anyone who’s actually read the memo knows are flat out false. They’re just consciously lying about it, just like all other mainstream coverage.

          But the mainstream media is “Real News”, so only a terrorist would question anything they say.

          Now that we’ve worked out what your memo’s really about, let’s examine its argument.

          “Now that we’ve established you’re wrong, because we say so, let’s pretend to make a case for why you’re wrong”

          Here’s what they came up with:

          Then you seem to make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so.

          According to The Economist, Damore SEEMS to “make a giant leap”. They don’t actually specify what making the leap meant, but it’s clearly a misogynist, anti-diversity leap, so it’s bad.

          They don’t actually see him making the leap either - they only figure he seems to. And therefore Damore is to be crucified.

          This kind of horseshit is what passes for journalism these days. Whatever their actual goal here is, it’s certainly not to inform you.

          1. 5

            It is not surprising that people who have prejudices seek to “prove” them via science, but I think it is obligatory for people who do know some science to object. So I feel obliged to point out that your use of logic is, um, flawed. The Economist article agreed that science proves men and women are different. They disagreed with Damore’s argument that those differences explain and justify the imbalance between men and women in Google’s engineering and management staff. Try to logically work through the argument without indulging in emotional tantrums and you will understand it better.

            1. -1

              You know the article is full of shit, and you’re full of shit in pretending it’s not.

              You, Sir, are part of the problem. I just can’t imagine why you psychopaths insist on burying the truth at every turn, when you’re mostly just slaves like the rest of us, and just as fucked.

              1. 6

                No. What I know is that a bunch of stats challenged resentful men attempt to present their sexist prejudices as scientifically validated.

          2. 1

            You present a diagram of two normal distributions, with the same standard deviations but slightly different means, to demonstrate that small differences in group averages produce large differences when it comes to outliers. (The Economist’s data team has kindly redrawn this for me, highlighting the “tail” of the distribution with the higher mean.) The point of this simplified model is to demonstrate that, of everyone who scores very highly on the variable under consideration, many more will be from the group with the higher average.

            You can play with an R model of this: https://lobste.rs/s/q9ewda/no_google_manifesto_isn_t_sexist_anti#c_5lqoxd