> The document, which was widely condemned as misogynistic and scientifically inaccurate Citation needed? Have The Guardian actually read the memo? They are re-iterating misconceptions based on Gizmodos original story, where Gizmodo deliberately gave a misleading report, removed sources and incorrectly presented an internal memo for internal discussion as an "anti-diversity manifesto". Even a cursory glance of the ac…
I read the whole thing and I think the allegations hold. There is one citation to a scientific article in the memo: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... . It's a meta analysis that looks at abstract personality traits (agreeableness, people-orientation) in studies involving socialized adults. The big takeaway is that these studies show that women are more "agreeable" and "people-oriented."…
Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion.
> without proof, that these observed differences are stable across cultures.
Actually, most of the studies that replicated these findings (with large effect sizes and very large sample sizes) were cross cultural.
I collected references here:
http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-behind-manife...
One of the most interesting finding (that's also been replicated), is that gender differences in these traits increase the more egalitarian the society. This is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if the differences were caused by cultural pressure.
> flimsy, embarassed to be that sloppy in an HN post..
Well, you just were.
EDIT: And even if he had been completely wrong, that doesn't make what he wrote ("We need more diversity, but we're doing it wrong") misogynistic in any way shape or form.