[dropstickle]

Did you read the memo? He got all the biology research wrong? Please come with some examples of errors in the empirical claims he made.

And he is not saying that you are a "freak" or "biological anomaly", he is talking about aggregated, statistical differences.

[budde]

> And he is not saying that you are a "freak" or "biological anomaly", he is talking about aggregated, statistical differences.

He provides no evidence to back the conclusions he draws from that data though. It reminds me of some articles or posts you might see briefly gain traction on the internet where the author starts from a point backed by one or two reputable sources and proceeds to use those references to back an argument that lies well outside the bounds of the original data.

As one of the authors of a paper cited in the memo puts it:

> In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. [...] But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large [1]

[1] http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

[dropstickle]

The post I responded specifically said the memo author got all biological research wrong. Now, his conclusions from that are certainly more debatable.

I guess the larger point I was trying to make is that when people feel singled out because of statistical differences b it leads them to take things personally, which leads to perpetuating disproportionate reactions and a non-existing platform for actual discussion.