Haha, I can almost understand people not reading the 10 page memo, but not reading my 2 paragraph comment before responding is reprehensible.

I didn't say that at all. My example had nothing to do with biology. I was merely saying that some traits alter your inclination perform a task without altering your ability to do perform that task. Also, I didn't say anything about laziness (I said something about delay-of-gratification).

Not true. The traits that make me more likely to choose something are often very different than the traits that make me good at something.

For instance, I'm an overweight gentleman who has vanishingly little ability to delay gratification when it comes to food. Because of those traits, I rarely choose to shop at the grocery store, and instead opt for fast food on the way home. However, when I do shop at the grocery store, I kick serious ass. I find the sales, I buy the healthy stuff, and I'm super nice to the person who watches the self checkout stations. Therefore, the same trait that make me less likely to shop at the grocery store does not at all negatively affect my suitability for it.

I do appreciate your perspective on this - I think most folks with a very black and white opinion of this situation (myself include sadly) are probably mistaken about something. That being said, one thing about your comment disturbs me.

How then does one talk about averages? Aren't they sometimes important? Particularly if the "problem" one is trying to address is merely one of averages itself (i.e. the gender gap). I think that most people (perhaps yourself included) are not truly bothered by lumping people together, but instead bothered that the conclusion isn't flattering. Suppose I said the following three things (and, I am NOT saying that I believe any of these things - this is just a mind experiment):

1. "On average, women are less likely to be a developer"
2. "On average, women are more likely to encounter negative bias"
3. "On average, women are less likely choose software development because of their biological makeup"

In which statements am I "lumping massive groups of population and assigning traits"? Which is not "OK" to say in a memo? For which should I be socially castigated? If the answer to any of these is only 3, I submit that you are simply cherry picking the statement that you don't like as the generalization.

I agree that this is capitalism, and I certainly agree that Google has the right to fire Damore (even as I personally find that action repugnant). That being said, political correctness can still be repressive, socially speaking. The state is not the entity that exercises power within the country. For example large corporations also wield power in a capitalist system (particularly those with $500+ Billion market caps, and particularly those with a history of employment price fixing and collusion).

Maybe we have, but this is not currently Sundar Pichai's stance. Sayeth he on this issue:

Naubol is totally right. Read the memo again (or, you know, for the first time).

Additionally, and I think more importantly, the notion that you (and many other people) have of "toxic" ideas is very disturbing. To declare an ideological, political, or sociological position as "toxic" justifies (for many people) a multitude of disproportionate responses, including violence and large-scale social castigation. I certainly think certain ideas are wrong or even morally repugnant, but we need, as a society, to be in a place where we can have these discussions rationally and without fear of reprisal. In short: even if you (and all the other folks in the world that didn't bother read the memo) are right about his premise, it simply doesn't justify the backlash.

You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions.

Simply false. Please quote for me the section of his memo that would make any reasonable person think that. Just because a person can talk objectively of averages or statistics doesn't mean that they are incapable of judging, grading, or promoting people based on their personal merits.

Given the quite reasonable and level-headed tone of his memo, I think this reflects quite poorly on those that stayed home from work. Perhaps they should have been fired.

I'm not sure that people are that concerned merely with the fact that they have blacklists. Rather, I think the concern is Google has shown that, as a company, they conflate having a non-conforming view with being "impossible to work with" (as evidenced by Damore's firing). Therefore, their blacklists would indeed have folks that they "don't agree with".

The CS gender gap likely has a variety of causes, and I think that is one of the most significant points of Damore's memo. Heck, he literally titles a section "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech," meaning that bias may be a component, but there may be others.

To your specific point, saying that the gap is entirely social or entirely biological is probably over-simplifying. Given that there are likely a number of factors (and assuming that biology is one of the causes [duck!]), I would expect that on average, women would be underrepresented in CS across the entire world, but would closer to parity (or in the majority) in certain places based on prevailing social factors and perception.

I too did not realize that an original well-sourced version existed until I read Noble713's above comment (thank you!). However, I cherry picked a few of the bolder claims and found that there was indeed at least some scientific basis for each of them.

Also, I think people of good conscience could choose not to castigate the author for not citing sources for every single claim, but rather give him some benefit of the doubt *prior* to firing him. Similarly, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make claims without any citation whatsoever.

If only I could mod your post up, I would.

We really need more visibility around this door issue. That, and the Oxford Comma.

I have the strange feeling that if you and I met each other in person, we'd get along quite well.

But alas, we haven't. So screw you and your oddly prudish putdowns (smiley face goes here).