damore

Third, this is a claim that Damore fully understands as a statistical claim about the general population.

James Damore was completely right about women in tech and Google should never have fired him.

All of this is complete unfounded nonsense, repeatedly and directly contradicted by what Damore actually said.

It is not a question of Damore believing he was creating a grounded argument from science.

The James Damore story here got massive over claims of his freedom of speech being violated.

It might be worth Googling James Damore as an early example of this chilling effect.

This is in fact a hallmark of the sorts of authoritarian regimes Damore complained about.

You have stated several times that Damore stated that wasn't his intent.

And Damore is really making the mildest possible arguments about such differences.

This is not a strawman; your argument requires this level of absolutism, because otherwise it is not fairly engaging with what Damore actually said.

Sounds like you're toeing the line Damore toed before Google fired him.

I don't think Damore intended to create an uncomfortable working environment, but he did, sadly.

Didn't James Damore get himself fired "just asking these questions" at Google?

"You are in a group that tends to X, therefore you are X" is false logic that Damore calls out as false logic.

> "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article." Damore's memo is not an article in this sense and it especially is not what OP submitted.

Note that Wikipedia endorses Damore's claim there: "A research [sic] over large samples has shown that levels of neuroticism are higher in women than men.[25]" Similarly, greater variability in male IQ is backed by research.

And as I recall, Damore's feedback was part of a program explicitly soliciting this sort of feedback.

Damore repeatedly, explicitly stated throughout the memo that such stereotyping is inappropriate.

Findings like these adequately support the core of Damore's argument, i.e.