And that’s exactly what he did, with a plentiful scattering of qualifiers, note also his particular rails against “social constructionism” and that Google should just accept that the natural limit of diversity in tech has already been reached.
Are you interpreting the comment you linked to be support for a nature only argument?
This isn’t a case of nitpicking a single sentence that he wrote or paragraph, but viewing the broad concept and argument of the entire piece. Thus, singular quotes from it are not directly representative of its whole.
Fair enough, but without using specific individual quotes you can’t really effectively make a case that he’s presenting an argument counter to the stated claims. It’s pretty difficult to make the case that when the author says that different preferences are in part biological, what he really means is exclusively biological. Quite frankly, you have not made that case.
I didn’t go through all of the links provided, but i was similarly annoyed at the prevalence of wikipedia sourcing, that’s bush league. I agree that the burden is on him to prove any claims made counter to prevailing thought, and i take no stance on whether he’s done that. My only real interaction with his work here on Medium has been to correct the hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty about the paper. I would classify your claim as hyperbole, as i can’t find anything in the paper to justify a claim of exclusively biologically determined traits.
To that point, many of the statements he made about himself, I find to be disingenuous at best. Such as his labeling himself as a liberal.
Of course a self label needn’t be accurate in any way, but what in his piece would discount the accuracy of his label?
Pardon the tangent, but I like to use metaphors and analogies to broaden the perspective.
Perfectly appropriate, i do the same.
