James Damore's memo made giant, unfounded logical leaps and ignored important evidence that didn't support his conclusion
Last week this newspaper said Alphabet's boss should write a “detailed, ringing rebuttal” of a viral anti-diversity memo sent at Google. Here is how we imagine it Tweets: @eudaimonisty , @adamconover , @jguynn , @adammgrant , @theeconomist , and @mgsiegler Tweets: Jason Swadley Canon / @eudaimonisty : 'Your memo was an example of what's called “motivated reasoning”—seeking out the information you already believe.' https://www.economist.com/... Adam Conover / @adamconover : An excellent point-by-point critique of the Damore letter's logical flaws from the Economist. https://www.economist.com/... Jessica Guynn / @jguynn : “Your memo was a triumph of motivated reasoning: heads men win; tails women lose.” http://www.economist.com/... via @TheEconomist Adam Grant / @adammgrant : This is pure genius: #GoogleMemo gets skewered @TheEconomist. https://www.economist.com/... pic.twitter.com/XUg0v6hROC The Economist / @theeconomist : We drafted the e-mail that Larry Page should have written to James Damore http://www.economist.com/... M.G. Siegler / @mgsiegler : Even if you take away the ‘Game of Thrones’ reference, this @TheEconomist post is epic. http://www.economist.com/...