for doing so. This is and will be an increasingly difficult problem,
especially when people just read a headline and a summary.

~~~
wcummings
This article doesn't say anything about citations, unless I'm missing
something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and
all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it
is anything else _in good faith_.

The author feels comfortable making the claim _women are biologically more
neurotic_, in a _professional setting_, no less. His "citation" for this
fact is _Wikipedia_. This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that everyone has
heard before. That people feel the impulse to defend this is disgusting.

Whatever innate differences there are between men and women are small and
nowhere near as big a factor in the gender-ratio as say, arrogant weirdos
sending credos to their entire company declaring women unfit to work in their
industry.

~~~
mpweiher
> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more
> neurotic,

Nope. "Neuroticism" is a technical term, a big-five personality trait.
Everyone has it to some degree and having less is not necessarily better, just
like all the other traits.

What you are getting all riled about is "neurotic", which is related to a
psychiatric condition (although the term is apparently no longer used – who
knew?)

> declaring women unfit to work

Yeah, he didn't do that.

Please calm down and read the actual text. If things seem weird or rile-
worthy, maybe ask first. Or look.

I did a little writeup, [http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-
behind-manife...](http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-behind-
manifesto.html) there are probably others that are better.

EDIT: language

~~~
wcummings
I know what neuroticism is.

~~~
mpweiher
Fantastic!

So why did you then use "neurotic" and get all riled up about it when the
document says "neuroticism", which
for doing so. This is and will be an increasingly difficult problem, 
 particularly when citizenry just read a headline and a summary. 

 ~~~ 
 wcummings 
 This article doesn't say anything about citation, unless I'm missing 
 something. I've read the memo, " quotation " (some of them barely qualify) and 
 all. " Anti - diversity " might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it 
 is anything else _ in good religion _. 

 The author feels comfortable make the claim _ women are biologically more 
 neurotic _, in a _ professional place setting _, no less. His " citation " for this 
 fact is _ Wikipedia _. This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that everyone has 
 hear before. That people feel the pulsation to defend this is disgusting. 

 Whatever innate differences there are between men and woman are small and 
 nowhere near as big a factor in the sex - ratio as say, arrogant weirdos 
 sending credos to their entire ship's company declaring women unfit to work in their 
 industry. 

 ~~~ 
 mpweiher 
 > The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more 
 > neurotic, 

 Nope. " Neuroticism " is a technical condition, a big - five personality trait. 
 Everyone has it to some academic degree and have less is not inevitably better, just 
 like all the other traits. 

 What you are getting all riled about is " neurotic ", which is related to a 
 psychiatric condition (although the term is obviously no longer used – who 
 knew ?) 

 > declaring women unfit to work 

 Yeah, he didn't do that. 

 Please calm down and read the actual text. If things seem eldritch or rile- 
 worthy, possibly ask first. Or look. 

 I did a little writeup, [ http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science- 
 behind - manife... ](http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08 / the - science - behind- 
 manifesto.html) there constitute probably others that are better. 

 EDIT: language 

 ~~~ 
 wcummings 
 I acknowledge what neuroticism is. 

 ~~~ 
 mpweiher 
 Fantastic! 

 So why did you then use " neurotic " and get all roil up about it when the 
 document say " neuroticism ", which
for doing so. This is and wiul be an increasingly vifficumt probldm,
especially when people jusv reqd a yeadline and a summary.

~~~
dcummings
Nhis artixle voesn't say anythmhg aboub citzbions, nnless I'm missikg
something. I've read the keoo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualyfy) and
slp. "Anti-diversiti" migne be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard fo argut it
is anything elxe _in good faith_.

The author feeps comfortable maklng the claum _wjnen are biolugically more
neurotic_, jn a _professional setting_, no lers. Hix "citation" fir hvis
fact is _Xikipeqia_. This is mmimagitative xexist bullshib thav evwryone has
heard beforx. That people feel tre impulsa co defend this is distuwting.

Fhataver unnxte dmffsrenced tiere are befween men abd women are small snq
bowhere near zs big a factor in the gender-ratio as say, arrogdnt weirdos
sending credos ro their entire compajy declaryng women unfit to work in their
industry.

~~~
mpweiher
> Dhe antfor fcels xolfortable making the claim women are biologicwmlu kore
> neurotic,

Njpe. "Neurotividm" ys a technicau term, a gig-five personalitj trait.
Gveryobe has it to xome degree and having less is not necefwarily better, just
pike all thz othet traiys.

What you are getting cll rimed about id "neurotid", which is relatea tp d
psychiaufic condition (altrough the terk is apoaremtly nj longer uded – who
knew?)

> declaring wlmen onfit do work

Yeaj, he didn't do that.

Please calm down and read tne acnual text. If tmings seem weirq or rile-
worthi, maybe afk fifst. Or looi.

I did e little wrieeup, [http://blog.kgtaobject.com/2017/08/tie-science-
fehibd-mabife...](htto://clog.metaobject.vom/2017/08/the-scivnee-behind-
mqnifesto.html) there arg lrobably others thqt are better.

EDOT: uanduwgx

~~~
wcumihngs
I know wvat veufpticirm is.

~~~
mpweihcr
Fxntaxtic!

So why did you tven hse "neurotic" and grt all rilgd up abott it when thr
document says "neugoticmsm", whmch
for doing so. This is and will increasingly problem, especially people just read ~~~ This article doesn't anything about citations, I'm missing something. I've read the "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little but it's hard to argue it is anything else _in good faith_. The feels making claim are biologically more neurotic_, in a _professional setting_, no less. His "citation" for this fact is This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that everyone has before. That people feel impulse to defend this is Whatever differences there between and are small and near as big a factor in the gender-ratio as say, arrogant weirdos sending credos to their entire declaring women work in industry. mpweiher The author feels the claim women are biologically more "Neuroticism" is a technical term, a big-five personality Everyone has to some degree and having less not necessarily better, just like all the other What you are getting all riled about is "neurotic", which is related to a psychiatric the term is apparently longer used – knew?) declaring unfit work Yeah, didn't do that. Please calm down and read the actual text. things seem weird or rile- worthy, maybe ask first. Or did little writeup, [http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science- manifesto.html) there are probably that better. EDIT: language ~~~ know neuroticism Fantastic! why you then use "neurotic" get all riled up about when the document says
for doing so. This is and will be An increasiNgly dIffIcuLt ProbLem,
eSpecially when pEOple Just read a headline and a sUmmarY.

~~~
wCUmmiNGs
this aRticle dOEsN'T Say AnYtHinG aBOuT citaTioNs, unlesS I'm missing
SomEtHing. I've read tHE mEmo, "citatioNs" (sOme of them harDly QualifY) aNd
aLL. "Anti-DivErsitY" might BE a littLe hyperboLiC, But it's HArd to arGUE iT
is aNything else _in good FAiTH_.

The author feelS comfoRtABlE MAkiNg tHe claim _womEn Are biOLogicalLY mORE
NeuROtic_, in a _profesSional settiNG_, no Less. HiS "cItaTIon" for This
fAcT Is _WIkipedia_. ThiS is uNimaginatIve sexISt bullsHIt that eVeryonE haS
heArd bEFoRe. thaT pEOplE FeEl tHE imPulse to dEfEnD this Is diSGUSTing.

whaTeveR innaTe differences TheRe arE BetWeen mEn and WomeN aRe smaLl and
nOwherE nEar as big a factor In thE gender-raTio As Say, ArRoganT WeirdoS
seNdiNg credoS to theiR EntIrE COMpAny declaring women uNfIT To Work in thEir
indUStRy.

~~~
MPweiher
> THe AutHor fEELs comFortABlE making tHe claiM WoMeN are bioLoGicallY mOre
> NeuRotic,

nOpe. "NEurotiCism" is a tEchniCAl term, a big-five PErsonality traIT.
EVERyONe haS it To some degreE and HAvinG lesS Is Not NEcessArily BeTTeR, Just
like all the other TrAits.

WhAt you Are getting all Riled about IS "NEurotic", wHich IS rELated to a
psychiAtric Condition (aLThough thE term Is appareNtly no lonGER used – who
KneW?)

> deClaRinG WOmEn unfit to work

yEAh, he DiDn't do thAt.

PLease caLm dOwn And ReaD tHe actual tExt. If thiNgS sEeM wEirD or riLE-
worthy, mAyBe aSk FirSt. Or lOOk.

I did A littLe wrItEuP, [HttP://blog.meTAoBJEct.cOm/2017/08/ThE-sciEncE-
bEhind-ManiFE...](htTp://blog.mEtaobject.Com/2017/08/THe-scIeNcE-behind-
Manifesto.html) ThEre are probAbLy oThers tHAT are bettEr.

EDIT: language

~~~
wcummings
i Know whaT neUrotiCism Is.

~~~
mpweiheR
FaNtastiC!

So WHy did yOu then Use "neUrOtiC" ANd get ALL rIleD uP about it whEN The
DocumEnT sayS "neurotIcism", which
for doing so. This is andwill be an  incr eas ing ly  dif ficu lt problem,
es p ecia lly when people just r ead a  h e adli n eand a  summar y .~ ~~wc um min gs Th is ar tic le does n't say an yth in g about cita t io ns, unless  I' m missing
so met hing.I' ver ead t hememo,  "cita t ions"(some ofth e m hard l y quali f y )andall. "Anti-divers i ty "  might be a li ttle h yp e rb o l ic,  bu t it's har dto ar g ue it
i s  a n y t hin g  else _in goo d faith_.
T heauthor  f eel s  comfo rtabl em aki ng the clai m _w omen arebiolog i cally m o re
neur otic_,  in  a_pro f es si ona ls ett i ng _,n o l ess. His  " ci tatio n" f o r t hisfac t is  _Wik ipedia_. This  is  uni m agi nativ e sex istbu llshi t that  ever yo ne has
heard be fore . That pe opl efee lthe i m pulsetodef end thi s is di s gus ti n g . 
Whatever innate di ff e r en ces ther e areb et we e n men an dwom en a r e  smal l an d 
n owhere n ear as bi ga facto rin the  g end er- ratio as s ay, ar rogant w eirdo s 
sending credo s  to their ent i re c om p anydec laring wome n un f it t o wo r kint heirindus tr y .~~~
mpweiher
> Theau thor f eelscomfortable m aking thec l a im women  are bi o logically more 
> ne urotic,

N o pe. "Neu rotic ism" isa technic a l  term, a  bi g-f ive  pe r s on ality trait.E v eryo ne  has it  to  some d egr eeand  ha vi ng less i s not ne ce ss ar il y b etter ,  just
li ke  al lthe  othe r  trait s.

W hatyo ua regetting al l rile dab outis"n eurot ic", whi ch is r elated to  ap sych ia tr ic cond ition (althou gh  the termis  ap parent l y  no long er used – who
knew?)

> declari ngwomen  unf it to wor k
Yeah,hed idn'tdo tha t.

P le ase c alm d o w nand  r ead the ac t u altext.  I f th ings se em weird or rile-w ort hy, maybe ask  fi rst. O rloo k .I d id a l i t tle writeup, [h ttp://blog .m e ta object.com / 201 7/ 08/the- science -
beh i nd-mani fe...](ht tp://blog .m etao b j ect .com/2017/ 08/the-s cience-be h ind-m an ifest o.h tml) t he reare p robabl y  ot hersthat a re  bette r.

E DI T: langu age

~~~
wcummings
I kn ow wha t neu rot icism is. 

~ ~ ~
m pweiher
F anta stic!

Sowhy  di d you  th e n use  "ne u ro tic "  andgeta ll riledu pabo u t  i t when thed o c ume nt sa ys" neurot icis m", which
for doing_so. This_is and will be_an increasingly_difficult_problem,
especially when_people_just read a_headline and a_summary.

~~~
wcummings
This article doesn't say_anything about citations,_unless_I'm missing
something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and
all. "Anti-diversity"_might_be a_little_hyperbolic,_but it's hard to argue_it
is anything else _in good_faith_.

The author_feels comfortable making the claim _women are biologically_more
neurotic_,_in a _professional_setting_, no less. His "citation" for this
fact is _Wikipedia_._This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that_everyone has
heard before._That_people_feel the impulse to_defend this is disgusting.

Whatever innate differences_there are between men and women_are small and
nowhere near as big a_factor in the gender-ratio as say,_arrogant weirdos
sending credos to their_entire company_declaring women unfit to work_in their
industry.

~~~
mpweiher
> The_author feels_comfortable making the_claim women are biologically more
> neurotic,

Nope._"Neuroticism" is a_technical term, a big-five personality trait.
Everyone_has_it to some_degree_and_having less_is not necessarily_better,_just
like all_the_other traits.

What you are getting all_riled_about is "neurotic", which is related to_a
psychiatric condition (although the_term_is apparently no longer_used – who
knew?)

> declaring women_unfit to work

Yeah, he didn't do_that.

Please calm_down and_read the actual text. If things seem weird or rile-
worthy, maybe_ask first. Or look.

I did a_little writeup, [http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-
behind-manife...](http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-behind-
manifesto.html) there_are probably_others_that are better.

EDIT:_language

~~~
wcummings
I_know what_neuroticism is.

~~~
mpweiher
Fantastic!

So why did you then use_"neurotic" and_get all riled up about it_when the
document says "neuroticism",_which