[s73ver]

"By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way"

But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies.

The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence.

"They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold."

No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.

[daenz]

>That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted.

I want to follow up on this, can you give an example? From what little I know, it's essentially settled science that men and women have statistically different interests, and those interests exist across all cultures (implying a biological cause).

[charrondev]

You won’t get one. I’ve yet to see anyone serious even attempting to debunk that claim, and I doubt it will happen here.

[gammarator]

Here's a few expert perspectives you can start with: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments...

[devnonymous]

I'm not sure why more people aren't pointing this out but I couldn't take his arguments seriously when he weaseled in racial diversity after the evidenc about gender differences were presented. It is pretty clear from that alone that the intent was not to have a scientific discourse, it was to dress up bias as science.

[lucozade]

The problem isn't with the science, it's with the misuse of the science to add apparent credence to flawed logic.

So yes, across humanity there are statistical gender differences to the choices people make. The flaw in the logic is that that doesn't means Google shouldn't act on bias in its selection and retention policies. What it may well mean is that Google may need to mitigate the cultural biases both internally and externally if they are going to make more than a small dent in the imbalance.

Similarly, it doesn't follow from the argument that humanity is what it is to a position that Google shouldn't attempt gender equality. It does mean that it'll be tricky for a company their size. But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.

BTW there is often the assumption that something like gender equality is purely a political goal. And quite often it is. However, there is a very good argument that the tech pool for high potential people is quite shallow given the current and expected demand.

In my org we are taking steps to try to widen the pool of intellectually able people we can select from. One area that we are targeting is women. Another is geographical areas where we don't have traction (mainly eastern Europe and Africa). This isn't political per se. This is so we have a wider talent pool to choose from. I would be genuinely stunned if this type of thinking wasn't in part what Google senior management are also looking at.

[yorwba]

> But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.

That reminds me of something I read recently:

For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that.

Can you guess where I read that? (Hint: It was written by James Damore).

Now it just so happens that I disagree with that opinion, because it appears to remove the corporation's decision making from any moral considerations, leaving only profit. But it appears to be a point where you agree with the memo author.

[lucozade]

I don't have to guess, I read it. Also, I don't agree with him. His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is. I find his approach to reaching that conclusion somewhat disingenuous.

And I don't get your point on profit. He didn't mention it nor do I think that's the part of the culture he wants to retain particularly. I didn't mention it either. I want my company to succeed, I am a shareholder after all. But I also want it to be a good place to work as I spend a reasonable chunk of my week there.

I also happen to be a father of a daughter who wants her to have every possible opportunity open to her. Assuming this is one dimensional doesn't really fit the facts.

[yellowapple]

"His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is."

I had the opposite impression when I read it: there should be major change at Google (away from "echo chambers") and he absolutely does not like it the way it is.

[s73ver]

Here's an article from someone who would have a much better grasp on the subject than you or I: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-...

Here's another breakdown: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

Basically, all of them say that, while men and women are not purely identical, the differences between them are nowhere near as great as the manifesto makes them out to be. The purely biological differences have little to no bearing on coding ability, and the bigger issues are societal. Like the effect of having something like this coming out on young women who hear it as being told that they're not welcome in tech.