Good article, with even coverage of both sides of the argument Armchairflyer.
my bold
In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of
traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for
traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the
main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech
jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect.
Population differences in interest may be part of the explanation for why there are fewer women in the applicant pool, but the women who choose to enter the
pool are just as capable as the larger number of men in the pool. This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and
discouragement exist and contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed
in future generations.
When I see "diversity" demands for plumbers, electricians, truck drivers etc I will know we will have reached equality nirvana. Until then, it appears to me to be an agenda to cherry pick only the most desirable occupations and positions.