Dude, do you really think that I thought there was any chance you would have a different conclusion out of this discussion? See, you're already dismissing studies that you haven't even bothered to look at, and still haven't even read the most basic Wikipedia pages on the topic. Actually, "I" have mountains of incontrovertible evidence, which, like Dawkins's fossils, are available for all to see. The only reason you can still doubt this is if you don't want to learn the subject, and there is absolutely nothing I say that can make you interested at this point.
2. without detailed scholarly knowledge, it's too easy to be mislead by flawed studies, or to improperly generalize the results
3. as a proxy for scholarly knowledge, most people operate on the evidence of a consensus among scholars for any given position; such a consensus is easily produced for any topic for which such a consensus exists
4. you've claimed such a broad consensus on these topics
5. I've asked for evidence of this consensus
6. you respond that I should read thousands of papers on the topic, effectively becoming a scholar in the field, thus defeating the entire use of consensus as proxy
7. The replies by non-experts and experts, like Sadedin, that I've read, literally attack a straw man of Damore's arguments, or cite no evidence of their own, instead hand waving away their existence (like you).
8. The replies from experts that agree with Damore's empirical claims reinforce that narrative quite well.
What exactly am I supposed to find convincing? I think you should take a step back and review how you and others are approaching this topic, because you're frankly not doing yourself any favours.
You've now written 15 or more replies to a number people who have asked for evidence similar to my request. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and aggravation by either producing verifiable evidence of this consensus, or by acknowledging that such a consensus has no easily verifiable evidence, and so skepticism is perfectly warranted.
1. True, but I did study it in grad school for a few years. That was over a decade ago, but I remember the basics.
6. Not at all. I said you should start from one of the handful of links I posted, all to Wikipedia pages and to the top hit on Google Scholar. You can equally start from any of the top hits on Google, as at this point, anything would be better than nothing. You can read the whole thing in a couple of hours. And don’t worry, that won’t be enough to turn you into a scholar by any means.
8. I am not sure what narrative you're referring to. Reminder: we are not talking about whether or not there are innate biological differences that can be partial explanations to the lower interest of women in tech. We are talking about whether or not that has any bearing on the subject of sexism or relevant policy actions. Like in my analogy of the polluting chemical plant, the subject under discussion isn't whether cancer can be caused by factors other than exposure to chemical waste, but whether that possibility should be used as an excuse for the plant to continue polluting.
> What exactly am I supposed to find convincing?
Either you're being too sophisticated for me, or that you're naive in an almost cute way. Obviously, I am not trying to convince you of anything. That undertaking would be completely impossible until you yourself show some interest in the subject. Don't get me wrong: I would be happy to have an interesting discussion, or even a debate, with someone who's at all interested in this, but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone on a subject they know virtually nothing about and are not interested in studying even superficially. My only intent is to convince other curious people who may be following this discussion to read a couple of Wikipedia pages and be exposed to a fascinating subject.
> 6. Not at all. I said you should start from one of the handful of links I posted, all to Wikipedia pages and to the top hit on Google Scholar.
Except the links you posted don't dispute Damore's arguments at all. Damore's arguments are perfectly consistent with the recommendations in the survey, with the possible exception of stereotype threat, whose studies have come under fire recently.
> We are talking about whether or not that has any bearing on the subject of sexism or relevant policy actions.
You must be confusing threads. Your pollution example has nothing to do with anything we've discussed. I questioned your claim that Damore's arguments disagree with the consensus in the field and asked for evidence supporting your claim. Everything since then has been some bizarre pissing contest in which you repeatedly asserted your position without any apparent understanding of contrary arguments.
> Either you're being too sophisticated for me, or that you're naive in an almost cute way. Obviously, I am not trying to convince you of anything.
Nice, insults and ad-hominem. I've read plenty on the subject thanks, and your condescension is just the cherry on top of a now completely pointless thread in which you convinced no one of anything. Congrats. Have a nice day.
> Except the links you posted don't dispute Damore's arguments at all.
Which argument? That there could possibly be innate psychological differences between the sexes etc. (which is not Damore's point, but a distraction), or that this has anything to do with the problem we're trying to solve with diversity programs? The consensus is absolutely that there is a sexism problem. Damore pays lip service to the "existence" of sexism, yet seems to mistakenly believe that the research he cites means that diversity programs must be changed, just like in my chemical plant analogy.
> I've read plenty on the subject thanks
You clearly have not read even the basics. There is no condescension here. I am not smarter than you, nor more moral. I just spent a considerable time learning about this, and it is obvious that you don't even understand what sexism is (Neither does Damore, BTW), and it's become clear that you're not even interested enough to bother reading the most introductory material. You say, "there are no fossils," and I say, "here are the fossils," yet you refuse to look. How can I hope to convince you? The reason this doesn't bother me is that I believe that the problem of sexism is so obvious once you care to look and so well studied, that the only people who still resist it are those who insist on not learning what it is. Learning what it is would not make you a leftist, as facts do not prescribe values, and you'd still be free to contend that the situation does not merit intervention in the form of diversity programs, but at least it would make true discussion possible as it would make your arguments relevant.
You have no idea what I know or believe, and you clearly are even having trouble reading the arguments presented to you rather than some ridiculous straw man you've built in your head. I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith and who make absurd assumptions about anyone who disagrees with them.
How can you even know you disagree without knowing the most basic concepts? You are arguing over the likelihood of Goldbach's conjecture being true without even knowing what the natural numbers are, while relying on some chemistry studies, whose relation to the natural numbers is unclear to you. I don't know how it's possible to argue "in good faith" with someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject and refuses to learn.
To summarize, Damore wrote some memo whose intent was to show that Google should not invest in diversity programs. Those diversity programs are intended to fight sexism; I don't know how effective they are, but neither does Damore. His "arguments" consisted not of denying sexism (the meaning of which he clearly does not know), but of quoting some papers in yet another field he's not an expert in that purport to show that there are other factors involved. Those papers and others similar to them have been largely debated in the research community, and knowing nothing about that field, I could add nothing to that argument except parrot others. But I do know what sexism is, and I know the basics of logic well enough to see that there is no relevance to those findings even if they were true (again, a heavily contested point in itself).
He was fired for making a scene that required the CEO of Google to cut short his family vacation. If he were working for me, I would have fired him for incompetence and stupidity. Incompetence, because the guy does not know how to make a logical argument, lacks critical thinking, and failed to do even cursory study of the topic he discusses. Stupidity, because he didn't realize or didn't care that expressing himself -- a complete layman, and a rather disinterested one at that -- in that particular way, would have a negative effect on his coworkers and his employer. He's one of those people whose professional contribution to a company is negative.
