Damore, Peterson, and rerouted anti-corporatism

His conclusions fall far outside the consensus of the current scientific community, and hedging your opinion on how correct a layman is in his science is mindbogglingly naive

Not so much science denialist as a denial that evopsych ‘insights’ (when they are not just-so stories) are prescriptive. What is the point of bringing up that men and women have different brain chemistry, behave differently, etc? Most of us acknowledge this but it has no bearing on female equality de jure.

My goodness, just take a look at that 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧nose🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.

He's not exactly a layman, and the scientific accuracy of his memo has since been confirmed by pretty much every scientist who spoke about it (including those who do not agree with his conclusions). Note that his point was explicitly "stop ignoring these data for ideological reasons", so if yours is going to be "but it isn't settled science", then you don't exactly have a leg to stand on.

Besides, I'm not just talking about Damore and this thread. I.Q., for example, is settled science at this point, and I'm seeing the same kind of denialism about it on this board.

If males and females behave differently, you cannot measure equality by the male-to-female ratio and indeed you cannot expect it to be 1:1 in the first place.
And since that's the assumption of some of the current "equality" initiatives and regulations, I'd say it has enormous bearing on them.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here but I want to illustrate to everyone else the sort of ill constructed discourse that's been surrounding this case. Note how every person's contention with the memo are the badly extrapolated conclusions and misunderstood implications of many of the studies cited, and yet somehow the framing put forth by defenders of the memo (I am specifying of the memo since I don't believe he should have been fired) will make this false distinction that no one else makes and add that the conclusions are disagreed with as some sort of irrelevant aside at the end

lmao

He's absolutely a layman on the topics of sociology and psychology being discussed. Stop being so determined to be a pedant when I was helping your case. He should be protected as an employee regardless of how right he was on the topic.

this sentence tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the poster
absolute retard

The problem is that we're also disputing his conclusions because of how he's framed the data, not necessarily because the data have no correspondence with reality.

It's idiotic for the left to give greater power to corporations to discipline workers for their views, however, so I would defend him on that basis and no other.

...