Where in the document does he say that?

edit:
slow pony

Just as a convenience, here is a link to the full unedited document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ho-Chamber.pdf

Keep playing the raised by wolf game, it's funny.

Here he is saying he disagrees with google trying to make changes so 'both' men and women would find development appealing. Implying that for development work to be suited to women it must be changed. I.E. women aren't suited to development work.

Don't really know what you mean, but whatever. Lets not get into ad hominems.

No, he's saying that he disagrees with google trying to make arbitrary social engineering so equal amounts of men and women would find development appealing. It's a small but a very important distinction.

No, it implies that currently dev work is not appealing to as large a section of women as men. And btw. dev work isn't that appealing to men either as a whole. There's a pretty small subset of people that like development enough to make it a profession.

The idea that tech isn't suited to Equal portions of men and women implies women are not as suited for it as men. His entire post, despite his assurances that he hates sexism is sexist.

No. "appealing to" != "suited for"

You are making a distinction there that doesn't exist for me. Part of something's suitableness is it's appeal.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous to me.

Saying that men and women display different levels of interest on average in various subjects is not sexist. It's simply an observation of reality.

Not when he backs it up with dodgy personality science that can't do what he wants it do, namely back up his view on women in thechnology

AFAIK the science he pointed to has been verified by a bunch of scientists to be pretty non-controversial and mainstream in psychological and evolutionary science circles.

Context matters. Once you go down the "biological differences" route - with a group that has traditionally been the brunt of some kind of bias - everyone knows what you really mean. Again - replace women with black people and think about how it would go down. The only reason some can't see that is because they're aware of racism, but apparently unaware of gender bias in the tech workplace.

Also remember this dude was saying much worse in the private google forum, and he had to apologize for an offensive skit at his master's retreat. And he's now more than happy to move into his new role as an alt-right hero. He deliberately toned this article down to try to reach a wider audience, but left in poison pills about psychological gender differences. He clearly has an axe to grind.

Ultimately there is no such thing as cold rational discourse on a hot button topic like this. Anyone who thinks they're making an argument in a vacuum is just fooling themselves. Humans are emotional creatures (yes even men!) and all decisions are ultimately based on emotion. Googlebro can make all the supposedly logical arguments he wants, but the fact that he was motivated enough to make them into a 10-page document and circulate it internally at google - shows that he is extremely emotionally invested. That in itself doesn't make his arguments wrong. But lets dispense with this "just having a dispassionate discussion about diversity and gender" BS.

Ok, I'm taking all of this on face value from the single memo. I don't have any of the background info.

Please show your work how differing scores on psychological traits between genders directly translates to quantifiable significant difference in ability to do a job as an engineer. Otherwise you're just pointing to some stats and taking a whole bunch of speculative leaps to get to the author's conclusion. That's not science.

It's all in this thread that you're participating in.

I think I mentioned before that I'm not sold on the conclusions he draws. I'm just tired of people saying that he's pointing to pseudo-science articles when that's not true.

You might be conflating another politics thread with this one, and some of the material could have been missed as it was in quotes.

I must have missed that

The science may be true, the way he's using the conclusions isn't. The level of the differences is also being overstated, it's much smaller than he implies and the use of it to determine if some should be an engineer is really not supported.

And that's my overall point. Damore probably thinks he's just following real science, unaware of the speculative leaps he making to get from A to B - because he wants B to be true.

Then he'll turn around and lecture his debate opponent about not being objective. Happens every time.

good point.

Lever openly states in their employment pages that they have a 50 / 50 team. It may be more nuanced than it looks, but it seems they keep a strict goal like this.

The whole "What problem are you trying to solve?" test is a good one and it works both ways.

The % of women in the tech world not being at some arbitrary % social activists have deemed the acceptable number is the imaginary problem some people are crusading against.

Fired Google engineer compares high-paid tech job to Soviet forced labor

kinda have the lol at the right rallying behind someone this dumb

You'd have to be pretty dumb to interpret the shirt in that way.

Or you know... have an agenda.

How should it be interpreted? He's exactly like the people his supporters decry for using Nazi language to describe Donald Trump and his followers.