no use for cwm's
Aug 22, 2017 · 2 min read

Hi.

I really do not get why people are so upset about Damore’s memo. It was a memo meant for an internal messageboard for which he picked some random references he probably remembered from his undergrads to make the point that biologically induced sex differences exist.

I am 100% positive that if he had known that every offended grad student in the world would try to debunk this memo he would have been much more precise.

Or so.

Absolutely nothing Damore has written in that memo demands such an outrageous response by everybody and their sister (despite that he gives interviews with quite a few weird guys)

The only thing he is saying:

If we do not know if all observed sex differences are environmentally induced, is it then wise to base all programs to boost diversity on the assumption that all sex differences are environmentally incuded?

That is a perfectly viable question to ask. I would expect any employee to ask such a question.

He made a few mistakes (e.g. he misses to emphasize that differences are about interests not capabilities; or he failed to concede that the observed effect sizes can not explain a 80–20 sex ratio in some tech fields).

I am actually surprised that no one mentions the most likely scenario, which is that small biologically induced differences in interest exist and may even stack, but are then amplified by the environment. Most effects we observe in biology are multivariate, and most of the time the observed effects are best explained by unknown gradients we have failed to detect.

Btw, if this hypothesis is true, the outcome disparity would suck enough on its own. There is no need in dismissing biology just to make a point (and btw cultures can not be created without biology). Obviously, there is also the need to teach people how to avoid sexism in the workplace. Like Damore said, however, biology might give some hints how to make tech jobs more attractive to non-males. It would be wise to consider them.

That’s all.

Btw, we have a 50–50 ratio in biology now (and biology is now mostly informatics and statistics) and a 75–25 ratio in psychology (and in germany, about 75% of all medical students are now female). I do not think that everyone has ever protested about these disparities.

As a personal note:

  1. Do not brag about your credentials in an already way too long essay. Either you have point or not.
  2. Point out where other scientists have been in the wrong (e.g. the quilette piece or the meta-analysis done by the heterodox academy guys; i am sure you are aware of those).
  3. If your point is just that Damore has over-simplified much more complex issues, you do not need 100,000 words for it. Also, when i was a phd student, i spent my time in the lab or with R. Just saying ;)

)

    no use for cwm's

    Written by

    evidence based politics. alt-center.