How can you even know you disagree without knowing the most basic concepts? You are arguing over the likelihood of Goldbach's conjecture being true without even knowing what the natural numbers are, while relying on some chemistry studies, whose relation to the natural numbers is unclear to you. I don't know how it's possible to argue "in good faith" with someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject and refuses to learn.
To summarize, Damore wrote some memo whose intent was to show that Google should not invest in diversity programs. Those diversity programs are intended to fight sexism; I don't know how effective they are, but neither does Damore. His "arguments" consisted not of denying sexism (the meaning of which he clearly does not know), but of quoting some papers in yet another field he's not an expert in that purport to show that there are other factors involved. Those papers and others similar to them have been largely debated in the research community, and knowing nothing about that field, I could add nothing to that argument except parrot others. But I do know what sexism is, and I know the basics of logic well enough to see that there is no relevance to those findings even if they were true (again, a heavily contested point in itself).
He was fired for making a scene that required the CEO of Google to cut short his family vacation. If he were working for me, I would have fired him for incompetence and stupidity. Incompetence, because the guy does not know how to make a logical argument, lacks critical thinking, and failed to do even cursory study of the topic he discusses. Stupidity, because he didn't realize or didn't care that expressing himself -- a complete layman, and a rather disinterested one at that -- in that particular way, would have a negative effect on his coworkers and his employer. He's one of those people whose professional contribution to a company is negative.
To summarize, Damore wrote some memo whose intent was to show that Google should not invest in diversity programs. Those diversity programs are intended to fight sexism; I don't know how effective they are, but neither does Damore. His "arguments" consisted not of denying sexism (the meaning of which he clearly does not know), but of quoting some papers in yet another field he's not an expert in that purport to show that there are other factors involved. Those papers and others similar to them have been largely debated in the research community, and knowing nothing about that field, I could add nothing to that argument except parrot others. But I do know what sexism is, and I know the basics of logic well enough to see that there is no relevance to those findings even if they were true (again, a heavily contested point in itself).
He was fired for making a scene that required the CEO of Google to cut short his family vacation. If he were working for me, I would have fired him for incompetence and stupidity. Incompetence, because the guy does not know how to make a logical argument, lacks critical thinking, and failed to do even cursory study of the topic he discusses. Stupidity, because he didn't realize or didn't care that expressing himself -- a complete layman, and a rather disinterested one at that -- in that particular way, would have a negative effect on his coworkers and his employer. He's one of those people whose professional contribution to a company is negative.