[darawk]

> I'd also question the premise that Damore was fired merely for bringing up psychological differences. He also bridged the is/ought gap by making several demands of Google's hiring practices.

I don't think he made demands. He called for open discussion, and a reconsideration of aggressive recruitment of women.

[n4r9]

Fair point, demand is too strong a term. He specifically attacked funding for programs for minorities or women, and any hiring practises with emphasis on diversity, as being "based on false assumptions generated by our biases" (supposedly the creeping "leftist" ideology that's taking over Google) and that they "can actually increase race and gender tensions" without backing this up.

I'm not going to argue against that in this post, but I think imo he went beyond simply highlighting biological differences.

[darawk]

What he was saying was that if these biological differences are real, then we ought to expect unequal representation in engineering of women. And therefore, diversity programs that aim for equal representation are misguided and doomed to failure.

[n4r9]

You use the word "therefore", but it is in the connecting logic between your first and second sentences that Damore brings in a lot more than biological differences. For example, he claims that the opinions of staff at Google are clouded by leftist ideology, and that this determines the manner in which it attempts to increase workplace diversity.

Again, I am neither advocating for or against the truth of this. I'm pointing out that Damore did more than simply highlight biological differences. I think that's important because the shallow way it is discussed - e.g. in the linked article - only leads to divisiveness.

[darawk]

So, you think that his statements garnered controversy because he proposed policy amendments and didn't simply leave things at "innate biological differences might explain these disparities better than bias"? I think that's a pretty profound misreading of the situation.