>>All it would have taken was for him to run the essay past a couple of people with solid domain expertise, and they would have pointed out the dozens and dozens of problems with his assertions, reasoning and perspective.
I don't think this squares with truth. There is at least one PH.D psychologist who mentioned the memo was generally correct.
The people he cited told reporters they disagree with his interpretations of their research. There's a wired article going around with direct quotes but I'm mobile and can't find it easily.
Of course they did. When the press is on a witch hunt, and somebody is made to be the scum of the earth, people want to distance themselves from them. And if they hear what said person said framed as an "anti-diversity manifesto" (as if that was what it was), "sexist" etc, they would obviously say they "disagree with his interpretations of their research".
No, I'm mentioning a common reaction during witch hunting / moral panic / etc scenarios.
(Plus I don't consider people as solid blocks. One's reaction towards the media is not representative of the integrity of their work, one's family life is not representative of their public persona, and so on. Galileo bowed to the Inquisition, but his work is still solid).
Doubly so if, as it often happens, what they were asked to comment on were not the writings themselves in full, but a straw-man summarisation of them by journalists and related pundits (on which everybody seems to argue about).
Your third source claims that there is evidence of gender gap being due to biological differences that result in different interests. But Damore also made the claim that there is a biological difference in ability. Your source strongly disagrees, saying that "gender differences in math/science ability, achievement, and performance are small or nil." So they agree with some of Damore's memo and were careful to point out that they disagree with his claim about ability. If Damore had been that careful, he might still have a job.
Your fourth source includes one of the scientists who Damore cited. David P Schmitt's take is that "using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm."
Hardly "many agree with him". And it bears repeating over and over that cherry-picking science facts (or even the opinion of scientists who agree with you) is not science. It's the same exercise those who believe in chem trails engage in. Let's stop. If you want information about the population Google hires from, do research on that population not the general public. You would be studying the smartest of folks, who are likely to graduate from the elite universities of the world. Studies of biological differences in the general population might have little bearing on the specific population Google hires from.
I don't think this squares with truth. There is at least one PH.D psychologist who mentioned the memo was generally correct.