[s73ver_]

"It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth."

That's just it; it really did not. It contained a lot of things that people who aren't members of those groups he targeted think are plausible.

"I do think that men and women are biologically different and, it likely does contribute to a lack of interest in tech from women. "

And what, specifically, would those differences be?

[stcredzero]

And what, specifically, would those differences be?

The balance of the evidence, is that there are some biological differences in preferences. Both biological and cultural factors are at play. As groups, women and men are about the same in terms of average IQ, however, men tend to have a higher population of the extreme outliers. (Both extremely smart men and extremely stupid men.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTWSoM1_6KM

[andrewprock]

Is there any evidence that this is biological, as opposed to cultural?

[stcredzero]

In short, yes. You should look up the book which is cited in this video, and you should listen to the discussion of the prologue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw

Since the human brain and its interaction with culture is very complicated, more research is needed. But a fair reading of what we have so far would seem to indicate: it's both.

Beware of ideological just-so stories that make you feel good. Also, if it sounds messy and complicated, it sounds like actual biology and psychology.

[andrewprock]

It looks like there is only indirect evidence, and no direct evidence. In fact, the whole discussion smells far too much of "correlation means causation" to get anything useful out of it.

There are some great weasel words like: "there is good evidence ... play a role ..."

Without a hypothetical mechanism, this is all quite speculative.

[mpweiher]

>> Is there any evidence that this is biological, as opposed to cultural?

> [Plenty]

> It looks like there is only indirect evidence,

And there go the goalposts, red-shifting into the sunset.

> "correlation means causation" / "there is good evidence ... play a role ..."

Well, remember that Damore's claim was that there is evidence that we cannot categorically rule out biological causes for the skewed representation, in addition to discrimination.

For that claim, even much weaker evidence than what exists would have been sufficient.

[dragonwriter]

Damore’s claim was that the evidence justified specific corporate policy responses, including rejecting several of Google’s public core values.

[andrewprock]

There is quite a distance between:

"We cannot rule out biological causes" and "We should base our HR policy on this speculative research".

[Idontknowmyuser]

ok what about this "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616...)

"Abstract

Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes."

[andrewprock]

I assume you are presenting this as another example of indirect correlational evidence, with no hypothetical mechanism.

[stcredzero]

Nothing to get your knickers in a bunch about, is what I'd say about it. (Note, that term can refer to golf pants.)

[Idontknowmyuser]

a - Women have a higher capacity at empathy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221)

b - higher capacity of empathy might be in part to biological: "Testosterone may reduce empathy by reducing brain connectivity" http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empat...

c- people who have a higher level of empathy might be interrested in fields which need a higher level of empathy, or seek to join fields that directly interact with people [ I don't have a source for this one. It seems logical to me, but it is unproven. if you know a study that proves or disproves it. Please link it]

d - higher levels of women interessted in other fields leads to less women interrested in tech