> 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.
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 This nature versus nurture dichotomy is completely outdated and nobody in the field takes it seriously.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.
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.
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.
> 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.
+1. Discussing the differences bewween population differences, and then failing to discuss the magnitude of these differences (which to my understanding are small and inconsistently detected) makes large swathes of the infamous memo's argument invalid.
"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...
[2] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-bla...