> *You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the mem...

manigandham · on Aug 15, 2017

Yes, this is a case of context. In that exact quote it states "preferences and abilities" in terms of biological associations.

However, biological traits and abilities != career ability. Even more so since these are average indexes with vast overlap between groups.

richmarr · on Aug 16, 2017

Okay, let's try another approach.

On what basis do you think that preferences and abilities are two mutually exclusive traits?

We know interest is influenced heavily by environment. We also know that ability is influenced by both interest and environment. Carol Dweck's work is a good source for this type of study.

It also seems intuitive that ability influences interests, although I'm actually not aware of what studies exist in that area.

I don't think you're standing on as solid footing as you think when you're making accusations of others conflating topics.

manigandham · on Aug 20, 2017

There's another conflation between skill and ability. Lots of people can do lots of things, some are better because they're more interested (leading to more practice, etc).

Just because interests and abilities influence each other does not mean they are not exclusive. You can do a lot of things that you probably have never even considered before too.

tajen · on Aug 16, 2017

Plus where is the outrage when newspapers title: "A scientist proves that women can do two activities at the same time" and "What makes women better at management"?

Many women believe they're statistically more intelligent than men and less violent, by fate of biology.

mjevans · on Aug 15, 2017

I think a charitable way of taking that particular statement might be:

"The distribution of preferences and abilities of different groups differ."

Note the binding emphasis to both sides of the 'and'.

Also the focus on any specific cause for that difference should be addressed elsewhere, if at all. Not in an over-simplified singular soundbite.

Edit: what flavor of markdown hell is HN using... I always forget.

richmarr · on Aug 15, 2017

The important point here is that Damore triggered a massive threat response in the colleagues he characterises as being below "the bar". He explicitly talks about that bar being lowered, which by implication undermines a proportion of employees at Google (and people that are inclined to defend that group).

Furthermore he attacked 'diversity' hires as a whole, but only presented evidence on male/female differences not racial ones... so there's significant precedent for him making points that aren't backed up directly. I don't think he should get the benefit of the doubt there with regards to subtlety of meaning.