
The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo - Simon321
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
======
unityByFreedom
Was Damore referencing race when he brought up IQ in the memo?

"the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between
people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)"

IQ has no relevance to a discussion on gender gaps [1], so, why mention it?

Damore mentions politics here. In that context, IQ has recently been used in
discussions over racial differences [2].

[1] [https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-
bio...](https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-
claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-
August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin)

[2] [https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-
bla...](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-
iq-response-critics)

------
doubleshame
> So what? Which is to say, what are we to do with not just the conclusions of
> the memo but also its implications?

Two things:

1\. You can detect asymmetries in the nurturing part of the equation and
correct for them by changing the upbringing and exposure in the environment
(example: provide girls with building toys in addition to dolls)

2\. You can update the environment to accommodate for peoples' differences,
regardless of cause

By analogy, because there are people with only one leg

The correct response is: let's build ramps and elevators to be wheelchair
accessible!

The incorrect responses I've seen floating around are:

1\. You must hop on one leg while talking to such a person, because equality!

2\. Legs are a social construction! I can identify as a person with how many
ever legs I want. (/looks the other way while the one legged person hops up a
staircase)

Acknowledge differences, they make us all stronger.

~~~
plandis
Well in this case someone acknowledged differences and was fired for it.

------
unityByFreedom
This article cites an evolutionary biologist responding to Damore's essay
point-by-point [1]

Here's one highlight,

> His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e.
> innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a
> blank slate). This nature versus nurture dichotomy is completely outdated
> and nobody in the field takes it seriously. Rather, modern research is based
> on the much more biologically reasonable view that neurological traits
> develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic
> and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature
> and nurture.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-
bio...](https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-
claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-
August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin)

[1-archive] [http://archive.is/h5abO](http://archive.is/h5abO)

~~~
mpweiher
Yeah, except that is exactly what he did not say, one of the many straw-men in
the criticism of the memo.

From the memo:

" _Possible_ non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech"

and

"the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ _in
part_ due to biological causes and that these differences _may_ explain why we
don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership"

So "could", "in part", "may". None of this either-or dichotomy that the critic
somehow inserts.

Similar for the wired article.

'But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is
irrelevant at best. “I would assume that women in technical positions at
Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman,” '

No shit, Sherlock! This is about explaining the gender _gap_ , so the people
_not_ at Google.

"forecloses the possibility of changing sex roles and representation at
Google"

No, he does the reverse. He proposes changes to increase representation.
Whether these proposals are any good is a different story (I don't know), but
the claim is a simple lie.

And so on and so forth in tedious repetitiveness.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Saying _" in part"_ is still making a judgement in arguing biology _is_ a
factor.

I agree he does say "possible" and "may" in a few places, but he's
inconsistent. Overwhelmingly, he makes deterministic statements, including
when he gives interviews (for example at 5:32 in one with CNN [1])

As the evolutionary biologist notes,

1\. There are conflicting results with the research showing gender differences
in personality traits

2\. The research doesn't actually show that these trait differences are
biological

3\. "It is a massive leap to conclude that a slight difference in average
personality must undermine women's professional abilities in software
engineering"

> And so on and so forth in tedious repetitiveness.

The full response [2] is well worth a read. It is the most comprehensive
point-by-point reply by a scientist to Damore to date.

[1] [http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-
dam...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-
interview/index.html)

[2] [https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-
bio...](https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-
claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-
August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin)

~~~
mpweiher
> Saying "in part" is still making a judgement in arguing biology is a factor.

No it is not saying "is" a factor when it actually says _could be_ a factor
(in the outcomes).

This is elementary school english.

That biology "is" a factor in the differences between men and women is not
really debatable at this point. If you believe different, read _The Blank
Slate_ by Stephen Pinker.

