
Did James Damore really deserve to be fired for what he wrote? - saltvedt
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750
======
richmarr
It's a valid question, but Singer gets the answer wrong.

This is politics, not science.

1) Biology is a red herring. There's a huge chasm between any supposed
biological difference, and an actual model that can predict what proportion of
employees should 'naturally' be male or female.

Then there are culture issues (which are likely much larger than any
biological ones, after all countries like India have roughly 50/50
representation without needing special intervention).

Then there are bias issues.

To leap all the way from some small (debated) physiological differences to
suggested HR policy in a single bound speaks more to politics than science.

This requires primary research, not memos and hyperlinks.

2) Damore takes his selection of gender research and then generalises to _all_
forms of diversity... even accusing diversity programs of "lowering the bar",
which is incorrect and damaging to his colleagues hired through those
programs.

------
saltvedt
This is written by the somewhat famous moral philosopher Peter Singer[1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

