> he tackled a new (to him) science is such an unreasoned and unscientific way
So very much this. He presented very few facts and a tiny bit of cherry-picked research. He decided to tackle a big-boy subject with a sixth-grader's game.
Pro-tip: Don't dress up your opinions as fact.
Pro-tip #2: Don't tackle large or sensitive topics with an air of authority
Pro-tip #3: When addressing your colleagues find people who disagree with you or question you and incorporate their feedback.
#3 is the most difficult step. If you perform true self-reflection it can often lead to abandonment of the argument you were attempting to make because you realize you were wrong or simply that you don't know much about the topic.
> there is something about computer science that leads people to believe they can out-think experts in other fields at their own game.
This is very common among many fields of expertise. Go ask any physicist at your local university about crank papers claiming to have overturned Einstein (and possibly all of science). First of all they'll have a drawer full of them. Secondly you'll see over half are written by someone with an engineering degree.
Your response is the kind of response that just builds support for him more.
What have I seen since this memo came out, from people who disagree with it?
His words are offensive. Poorly written. Yes there's science but it was cherry picked. He's a "sixth-grader" and "not a pro". He's wasting work time. He's naive. He's a bad person. He's "alt right". He wrote his memo with an air of authority that he should not have used. He doesn't understand the topic. OK, he's studied biology but not the right kind of biology. He said women suck compared to men. OK, maybe he didn't but he implied it. His memo was too long. Or maybe it was too short, because he cited 'very few facts'. Why is he "evidence bombing" people. He should have known readers would misinterpret it and that's his fault. He shouldn't have given interviews to YouTubers I don't like. OK, he interviewed with the WSJ but he was wearing a dumb t-shirt. He's the face of Silicon Valley sexism. Some women are offended and that's enough to stop discussing it. It's ridiculous that anyone agrees with him. He posted it to the wrong forums. Maybe he posted it to the right forums but he should have known it'd go viral. Why is he so naive? He deserves everything he gets.
These are all excuses to shoot the messenger. I am tired of reading them. They do not advance the debate at all, they are just ways to try and shut it down. And every time I see someone attack James Damore, or his writing style or whatever, instead of talking about the actual issues, I feel these people are losing the debate.
No one outside of science should be able to talk about scientific subjects or reference science? Really? Do you apply these arguments equally to people you agree with as those you don't?
As far as I can tell, nothing in the memo was wrong or "cherry picked". He presented some evidence that women have statistically different personality traits than men. That's absolutely correct! That's not very controversial. Then he suggests that different personality traits might lead to different choice of professions and interests. That shouldn't be a terribly controversial idea either.
So very much this. He presented very few facts and a tiny bit of cherry-picked research. He decided to tackle a big-boy subject with a sixth-grader's game.
Pro-tip: Don't dress up your opinions as fact. Pro-tip #2: Don't tackle large or sensitive topics with an air of authority Pro-tip #3: When addressing your colleagues find people who disagree with you or question you and incorporate their feedback.
#3 is the most difficult step. If you perform true self-reflection it can often lead to abandonment of the argument you were attempting to make because you realize you were wrong or simply that you don't know much about the topic.
> there is something about computer science that leads people to believe they can out-think experts in other fields at their own game.
This is very common among many fields of expertise. Go ask any physicist at your local university about crank papers claiming to have overturned Einstein (and possibly all of science). First of all they'll have a drawer full of them. Secondly you'll see over half are written by someone with an engineering degree.