| edit: you've already been lumped on, no need to reply to more of the same here. Now that the dust has settled a bit on the memo, I'm curious about this take: >That employee argued that people, such as people like me, were inherently less competent than others due to aspects of their gestation. I didn't get that much of a dichotomy from the memo. To me he focused much more on interests than competency or capability, and he went through some effort to indicate that the effect was limited, including this summary at the top: >Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. Then followed with a little chart showing two distributions with a lot of overlap. I felt like the story of the memo overtook the memo itself, which seemed to be a ham-fisted attempt at exploring how we prioritize various metrics with diversity and inclusion. It was obviously premature as well, based on his own charts the effects he was discussing wouldn't come into play until we're approaching something much more even than we have today. Ultimately the way Google handled it seemed rather cowardly. Damore's personal story adds a little complexity to the situation and I really feel that he touched a third rail that might not have been as obvious to him at the time. |
And that story was mostly fictional. The memo itself bares little resemblance to most of the reporting about it.