So I gather. Not gonna lie, I heard "manifesto" and immediately thought back to Industrial Society and its Future, which is a much more substantial document; I would not have time for something of similar heft just now. I should've taken a closer look straight away. But as I said before, it's been a busy week.
Having now read it, I can immediately conclude that James Damore is very new at this, approached it under the assumption that the social and political context around the matter was susceptible to mere reasoned discourse, and really had no idea of the minefield into which he so blithely strolled.
Someone a bit more seasoned, for example, would not have included the "Possible non-bias causes..." section at all. On the one hand, it's not as well supported as it might be and "evolutionary psychology" in particular is a great big pile of unfalsifiable hypotheses. On the other and much larger hand, that section is just chock-full of material for the kind of tendentious, misrepresentative quote-mining that's a go-to tactic for those who so believe in the righteousness of themselves and their cause that they find no dishonesty too mean to deploy against someone with the temerity to dissent.
I can also immediately conclude that I did indeed perpetuate a misrepresentation from a secondary source, and I greatly appreciate 'abnry and 'beaconstudios bringing my attention to the error. In future I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
Having now read it, I can immediately conclude that James Damore is very new at this, approached it under the assumption that the social and political context around the matter was susceptible to mere reasoned discourse, and really had no idea of the minefield into which he so blithely strolled.
Someone a bit more seasoned, for example, would not have included the "Possible non-bias causes..." section at all. On the one hand, it's not as well supported as it might be and "evolutionary psychology" in particular is a great big pile of unfalsifiable hypotheses. On the other and much larger hand, that section is just chock-full of material for the kind of tendentious, misrepresentative quote-mining that's a go-to tactic for those who so believe in the righteousness of themselves and their cause that they find no dishonesty too mean to deploy against someone with the temerity to dissent.
I can also immediately conclude that I did indeed perpetuate a misrepresentation from a secondary source, and I greatly appreciate 'abnry and 'beaconstudios bringing my attention to the error. In future I'll try not to make the same mistake again.