> Not much new here. This article is essentially just re-affirming all the scientific statements that were already made in the original memo, backed by links to scientific studies.
It's not the biological claims, it's the conclusions he draws from it.
Here's the thing. Let's stipulate that all the biological (and esp. neuroscience-related) claims are 100% true. What follows?
Let's look at nursing. Clearly, it should be a male-dominated profession, right? The work-life balance (all the night shifts) is horrible and the stress is high (lives in the balance and all that). This is a profession that women should not want, right?
Same for accounting. Few professions are less about people and more about things. No room for "gregariousness". Again, a man's job.
In contrast, management positions (at least mid-level leadership positions) should be a great fit for women. All about interacting with people and that "gregariousness".
Obviously, this is not how the real world works. My point is that we're dealing with wishy-washy criteria here that you can use to argue whichever way your personal biases lie. They are inherently unfalsifiable and hence, unscientific. It's like the story about the blind men and the elephant [1], drawing bold macrosociological conclusions from fairly raw biological and psychological data.
Very little of nursing is like that. Most nursing doesn't have lives in the balance most days. It does require being somewhat social with patients though.
You are forgetting one huge thing. Lots of women doing something make it automatically attractive to women just because it'll be common in their circles.
You can make the same argument about IT. My point is not that what I'm saying is true, but that (like the macrosociological claims in the paper) it sounds plausible, yet is unfalsifiable and hence, unscientific.
> You are forgetting one huge thing. Lots of women doing something make it automatically attractive to women just because it'll be common in their circles.
I am not forgetting anything. My argument was in essence a reductio ad absurdum. If you want to advance a social argument why women are over- or underrepresented in certain professions and why Damore is therefore wrong, that would be an entirely separate argument. You're welcome to make it on your own, but I don't think the memo is worth that much of a time investment myself.
>>The work-life balance (all the night shifts) is horrible and the stress is high (lives in the balance and all that).
I think nursing trades stress for job security.
There are many places like this in tech world as well. SDET positions in most big web companies. First 1 - 3 line support groups in big outsourcing firms etc etc.
The job is stress full, but the return for that is not money, its job security.
It's not the biological claims, it's the conclusions he draws from it.
Here's the thing. Let's stipulate that all the biological (and esp. neuroscience-related) claims are 100% true. What follows?
Let's look at nursing. Clearly, it should be a male-dominated profession, right? The work-life balance (all the night shifts) is horrible and the stress is high (lives in the balance and all that). This is a profession that women should not want, right?
Same for accounting. Few professions are less about people and more about things. No room for "gregariousness". Again, a man's job.
In contrast, management positions (at least mid-level leadership positions) should be a great fit for women. All about interacting with people and that "gregariousness".
Obviously, this is not how the real world works. My point is that we're dealing with wishy-washy criteria here that you can use to argue whichever way your personal biases lie. They are inherently unfalsifiable and hence, unscientific. It's like the story about the blind men and the elephant [1], drawing bold macrosociological conclusions from fairly raw biological and psychological data.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant