It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arguing against the facts that Damore presented in any sort of cogent manner.
Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals, rather than as stereotypical tribal members. And I'm personally very confused as to how anyone isn't wholly in favor of that. We are all more than our skin color or gender.
When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge?
Second, "facts that are completely true" does not gibe with most cognitive scientists seem to agree.
Which is it? Did you check every fact yourself, or did you just accept what he had to say uncritically?
From the article: Similarly, if you can read this guy's entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either.
The phrase facts that are completely true sounds young and naive. Just like the left can cite studies about unconscious bias, the right can cite studies about biological differences. That doesn't mean they're all true.
Even if you accept that "scientific facts" are the way to decide the workplace policy, his article isn't complete. Where is the scientific fact that says how much discrimination against women there is? He said "I'm not denying discrimination exists" but didn't address it further.
BTW I largely defended Damore, because many people I talked with have extreme "left wing" views. His points were completely mischaracterized in the media. It became a political circus. But I will also argue against extreme "right wing" views. That was the point of the quote.
FWIW I worked at Google for 11 years, and both my parents and sister have Ph.D.'s and are in the sciences, two in biological sciences. I know how "studies" work. Both people on the left and right (at least in this debate) have a naive view of science.
"Everyone is equal" is absurd, fantastical thinking. A criminal serial killer with a 70 IQ is not equal to Einstein by any metric. Whereas, the precept of, "Everyone should be given equal opportunity under the ruleset," is a noble ideal worth pursuing at nearly any level of policy.
When I read Damore's memo, I was nodding, not because I was being uncritical, but because he's right, as far as I can tell.
He's saying Google is chasing a fantasy of equal outcomes, rather than providing equal opportunities. That's correct, they are. His suggestions were to treat people more as individuals, rather than ham-fisting treatment based on perceived group identity. I think that's very obviously a better approach.
And like most responses to his memo, you can't say (or haven't said) a single thing you think he is wrong about. You can't, or won't, dispute a single line he said.
Just because you come from a good family, and believe that centrism is always the way to go, doesn't mean you're automatically right.
I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any science about discrimination against women.
It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against). That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy".
The problem is the "100%, facts that are completely true" mindset. Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not 100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You should read a little about the philosophy of science.
I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in a more constructive way.
And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.
Unforunately it takes years for a person to really known another person as an individual. And even then the preferences inherent in the first person will bias what they do with the knowledge they have of the other individual. Thus this isn't a solution.
What ever happened to the notion of being color-blind when it comes to policy enforcement? AKA, actually treating people equally, based on merit?
What exactly is wrong with "blind-hiring," rather than "diversity-conscious" hiring? It worked to remove the gender gap in orchestras. Why wouldn't it be good to use in tech?
http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...
Some have argued that treating others as individuals is what's already happening, resulting in people hiring people like them?
Damore spoke more about gender, than skin color as well. This part of the conversation isn't getting enough review too.
Diversity isn't just gender diversity. Gender diversity may just be the diversity that the majority can relate to.
With that being said, Many types of diversity require many types of approaches.
The lean startup conference has some laudable dialogue and track record hurling themselves into all sorts of diversity innovation discomfort: https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-...
