James Damore included citations and graphs. Gizmodo removed them in the version it publshed.

Damore’s memo was edited to protect your liberal sensibilities.

He does a PhD in Biology, so he must know something about the science.

http://heavy.com/tech/2017/08/james-damore-google-diversity-memo/

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google

Lora thank you for the Yonatan Zunger tip. I used him in my follow up today.

Do me a favor and read my last post. He discusses. You’re getting hung up on him not citing . I have cited and you aren’t responding to it.

I guess my question is, are all opinions equal and worthy of consideration? Do the random dude shouting on the subway, a tantrum-throwing three year old who just broke his spaceship toy, a Reynolds Aluminum Foil representative and L. Ron Hubbard all get to sit on a panel with NASA scientists to figure out an interpretation of the telescope data from Black Rock that seems to conflict with data from Long Ridge?

Nobody is owed a platform for their views. Not everyone deserves a seat at the table, or to take up other people’s time with nonsense. Time is precious and while you have the right to say stuff, you don’t have the right to be listened to or anyone to care about your opinion. Especially when the individual in question didn’t spend any of his own time doing his homework on the subject to acquire an informed opinion – he doesn’t want to spend his own time, he just wants to waste everyone else’s. He can go set up a Geocities page to rant into the ether like every other tinfoil hat wearer, nobody’s stopping him.

Also, from an HR perspective, Yonatan Zunger did a very nice response to what people imagine about software engineering vs. what it really is at a senior level and why Google really had to fire this dude.

Do me a favor here. Go through the gizmodo article and tell me which studies are cited there. Because the only link I see is to a news article about google being investigated for wage discrepancies. Because end notes like the following are not citations and make a really really weak foundation for the argument you and EHRL are trying to make:

“[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.”

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/google-employees-anti-diversity-memo-sparks-debate-over-140605608–abc-news-topstories.html

Perhaps a better approach:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-men-women-vastly-exaggerated-adam-grant

The Google writer discussed the studies, and Suzanne cited some. It doesn’t take much effort to confirm/deny the claim, a simple Google search (irony intended) for “women study neuroticism” will return Chapman et. al’s (2007), which is published on the National Institute of Health’s repository, which cites many other confirming studies which support the Googler’s point. Neuroticism, as it is discussed in the five factor model of psychology is not inherently a bad thing; just because a person ascribes negative connotation to it so they can get offended, doesn’t make it bad or wrong. There are evolutionary explanations for why there is a trend of higher neuroticism in women as a dominant trait. Think about why a wife stresses about a dad tossing their child high in the air, while dad thinks its ok because he’s got it under control. The women is right because it is an important defense mechanism, while dad is right too (for a reason my wife would disagree with…) There are natural differences between men and women that should be celebrated because they complement each other. The Googler never claimed empathy wasn’t necessary for leadership, he was saying women tend to have greater empathetic tendencies. He did not connect the idea to qualification for leadership. His wholly separate discussion about attaining leadership positions attributed the higher number of men in the positions was a result of men having different motivating factors than women, which are status and material rewards while women tend to value quality time and emotional fulfillment more. Again, there are biological, evolutionary explanations for why these traits developed to allow our species to survive. Neither is better or worse, they compliment each other, evolutionary history is proof of their importance.

Though I shouldn’t have to, Ill qualify the claims with my earlier assertion, and the Googlers assertion. These are trends and there are many anecdotal exceptions to the trends. These exceptions should not be barred from progress by truly discriminatory practices, just as anyone of any sex or race shouldn’t be discriminated against, even if they are a majority. He/we are offering a reasonable, non-malicious explanation for my the pools of available competitors for a given job are lopsided, be it tech or be it elementary education. Sometimes it is because of discrimination, which should be fought, but sometimes (I would argue often) it is not. The Googler is suggesting we judge people in the workplace as individuals and measure their value to the organization by their performance without consideration for the group they’ve been lumped into for political purposes. Are these inherent traits going to affect their performance? Yes. Is there a way to address that without discriminating against those who deserve it? No.

Chapman, B. P., Duberstein, P. R., Sörensen, S., & Lyness, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in Five Factor Model personality traits in an elderly cohort. Personality and individual differences, 43(6), 1594-1603.