> I think a reasonable person can conclude that what Damore did was de-facto engaging in harmful stereotypes, even if he believed he was creating a grounded argument from science.
No, a reasonable person cannot do so, because this is a matter of fact. This conclusion is incompatible with what the word "stereotype" means. Objectively, an empirically backed statistical trend is not a stereotype. Again, this is like using the word" stereotype to describe the statement "on average, men are taller than women".
It is not a question of Damore believing he was creating a grounded argument from science. It is a question of the objective fact that he was doing so.
> And while Damore didn't single out any specific coworker, he made clear that he was approaching working with his colleagues from a framework that made assumptions about them based on gender
No. His framework does not "make assumptions about them", i.e. about individuals. It highlights things that are known to be true as statistical patterns. He was explicit in noting that he does not use these statistics to prejudge people, for example:
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
He was explicit that his purpose in highlighting the statistics is to refute an argument he saw being made that a disparate outcome evidenced a bias. He offered an alternate explanation for the outcome.
To say that this is wrong is to say, in effect, that he is not allowed to hold the view, never mind express it. And it is to say that no refutation of the argument presented could be tolerated.
That is not how healthy discussion works. And as I recall, Damore's feedback was part of a program explicitly soliciting this sort of feedback.
Also notable, Damore also claimed (again correctly, again backed by statistical evidence) that women show on average higher openness and extraversion (other OCEAN traits) on the same studies where they show higher neuroticism. Nobody objected to that. Because the objection was rooted in emotional affect and a knee-jerk reaction to a word without understanding the underlying concept or caring about the evidence presented.
> Wouldn't the "reasonable person" principle conclude that,
I don't see why:
> In law, a reasonable person or reasonable man is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy.[1][2]
I don't agree that the people in question were conducting themselves in anything like that manner.
No, a reasonable person cannot do so, because this is a matter of fact. This conclusion is incompatible with what the word "stereotype" means. Objectively, an empirically backed statistical trend is not a stereotype. Again, this is like using the word" stereotype to describe the statement "on average, men are taller than women".
It is not a question of Damore believing he was creating a grounded argument from science. It is a question of the objective fact that he was doing so.
> And while Damore didn't single out any specific coworker, he made clear that he was approaching working with his colleagues from a framework that made assumptions about them based on gender
No. His framework does not "make assumptions about them", i.e. about individuals. It highlights things that are known to be true as statistical patterns. He was explicit in noting that he does not use these statistics to prejudge people, for example:
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
He was explicit that his purpose in highlighting the statistics is to refute an argument he saw being made that a disparate outcome evidenced a bias. He offered an alternate explanation for the outcome.
To say that this is wrong is to say, in effect, that he is not allowed to hold the view, never mind express it. And it is to say that no refutation of the argument presented could be tolerated.
That is not how healthy discussion works. And as I recall, Damore's feedback was part of a program explicitly soliciting this sort of feedback.
Also notable, Damore also claimed (again correctly, again backed by statistical evidence) that women show on average higher openness and extraversion (other OCEAN traits) on the same studies where they show higher neuroticism. Nobody objected to that. Because the objection was rooted in emotional affect and a knee-jerk reaction to a word without understanding the underlying concept or caring about the evidence presented.
> Wouldn't the "reasonable person" principle conclude that,
I don't see why:
> In law, a reasonable person or reasonable man is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy.[1][2]
I don't agree that the people in question were conducting themselves in anything like that manner.