The Guardian reports that James Damore is considering legal action against Google. James was fired because he suggested alternative diversity actions that Google did not want to consider or discuss. Below we have taken the first two paragraphs of the article and made comments in bold with .
The computer engineer fired by Google
[A good start]
for suggesting women are less suited to certain roles in tech and leadership
[Nope. It is about overlapping distributions with different means. He does say that the percentages by gender and race can be different because of mean differences.]
is considering taking legal action against the company.
[That’s what they report]
James Damore, a chess master who studied at Harvard, Princeton and MIT and worked at the search engine’s Mountain View HQ in California,
[We didn’t look these things up but we accept them]
[Boy did he ever!]
when he circulated a manifesto
[Well, yes it is a written statement by James outlining his views. We see manifesto as akin to fascist in terms of its negative connotation.]
at the weekend complaining about Google’s “ideological echo chamber”
[Yup. The evidence, his firing, confirms he was right.]
and claiming women have lower tolerance of stress
[The whole point of his memo was that populations can have different means but substantial overlap. James said that women, on average have more openness, extraversion, and neuroticism. The latter causes them, on average, to have higher levels of anxiety.]
and that conservatives are more conscientious.
[Don’t worry he said lots of negative things about conservatives. What he did actually say (p. 8) is that Google should stop alienating conservatives because viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important, conservatives need to express themselves, and conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, part of the Five Factor model that James uses elsewhere.]
It seems to us that The Guardian missed the most pro-conservative point in the memo when James went the full George Will and said that viewpoint diversity is (arguably, he hedged) the most important. Every progressive should be aghast at that statement but we have not seen mention of it.
James, we predict, will get enough money from Google that he doesn’t need to sue The Guardian. Of course, his relationship with the paper is different than with Google so his opportunity is not as great but they are clearly part of the echo chamber he wants to have a discussion with. It is unfortunate that they do not want to have a discussion with him.