Pretty good article. The economist can be counted on for insightful takes on current events. I recommend everyone add it to their daily reading list.<p>There is one problem with the article, though. It's not going to bring along any of the right-leaning people who are upset about anti-male discrimination and other such things. The article opens (smartly) by calling out “motivated reasoning”. But by the end, it references a list of lefty (from their perspective) links. Perhaps a better interpretation of Damore's own references would have been better.<p>Is it so unacceptable to admit that yes, men and women are different, but not mutually exclusive, and that women have plenty of the things the company wants?<p>Edited last sentence for clarification.
Pretty sure in a critically charged environment this article would fare far worse than the one it is criticizing. And the tone is so snotty and condescending.
It baffles me how this rebuttal is convincing to anyone. Damore argued group differences are <i>in part</i> responsible for the relatively fewer women in tech. I can't see how that over-arching point has been refuted here, no matter how snarky the response.
What a dumb pretense for an article. If you want to write something criticizing James' memo, just do <i>that</i>. Don't use Larry Page as a scenario for your message and headline.
Great article.<p>If anyone who agrees with James Damore's point is motivated to see the reason these arguments are summarily dismissed by many, I recommend reading "the mismeasure of man", by Stephen Jay Gould.<p>The idea of biological determinism has one fatal flaw... the grouping.
The article makes many of the same errors that they accuse Damore of making. It's inherent in rhetoric, also known as "motivated reasoning". I guess whoever draws the line between rhetoric and comprehensive, good-faith arguments wins the day.
> Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”<p>Guess he'll have to join the throngs of people fired for motivated reasoning to arrive at 'diversity is strength' and 'everyone is equal'.
so not only has the Economist taken to quoting Game of Thrones, but it now--taking as axiomatic the validity of said quote--projects this assumed validity onto the interpretation of real-world events? What a time to be alive.
Decries "unsupported claims" then goes on the make a whole bunch of unsupported claims.<p>Not very compelling, which is too bad because I was hoping to read something a lot more succinct.