Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).

More improtantly however, Damore did a lot more than name-drop the big-5 in his memo. The memo is peppered with references to sources from varied fields, from psychology and sociology, to biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, economics, statistics and so on.

The problem of course is that Damore is not an expert in any of those fields- much less an expert in all of them. Which tells us that, most of the time, when he says that some paper he's referencing is backing his views, he simply hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the paper may very well be claiming exactly the opposite than what Damore is saying.

Damore's memo is indulging in cargo-cult science. He references stuff he half-understands in the hopes to do what scientists do. Except he doesn't even understand what scientists do and why they reference others' work: which is to say, not to win a debate and show you're right on the internets, but to contribute new knowledge by building on the knowledge already contributed by others.

To have any respect for science and consider Damore's memo anything else than pseudo-scientific claptrap is a contradiction. To call that garbage "science" is offensive to the work of scientists. That is an even bigger reason to be angry at an idiot like that, without even going to what he was trying to say with his "sai-ent-tifickal" way.

So you're admitting that James Damore is referencing legitimate scientific sources. It's just that you're claiming the whole field isn't valid. Then you go on to make unsubstantiated claims that his interpretations are wrong, but you produce no specifics. That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.

Where am I claiming that "the whole field isn't valid"? I said there's a reproducibility crisis and that the reliance on p-values has been criticised in various fields.

I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist and he doesn't understand the field. That's what you expect from non-experts who pretend to know what they're talking about, to be talking nonsense.

>> That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.

You keep insulting me.

At least provide some citations or examples before you use such childish phrases as "sai-ent-tifickal". You sound really terrible when arguing like that.

What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".

Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support.

What's happening here isn't a shift.

In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift.

What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".

Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like:

Peacefully donating to political PACs.

Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian)

Civilly stating an opinion.

Peacefully gathering to express political views.

At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.

The law recognizes the rights of the owners and managers of companies to organize them out of like-minded people.

If that's problematic for you, you should lobby for employment laws to change. It's arguably not the NLRB's place to come up with new protections; they're an agency largely unaccountable to the voters.

I was once pushed out of a job for being perceived as "too leftist." In retrospect, perhaps I should have claimed harassment.

I don't think any but the most ideologically fervent would consider firing someone for simply being a Democrat or a Republican anything but a crappy thing to do. I understand that at-will employment is a beneficial freedom to employers in the same way that free speech and freedom of association are beneficial freedoms to individuals. However, at-will employment was once used to actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion, or place of national origin. Society came to recognize that as a problem, and society came around to change "the social compact." The exploitation of ideologues to use at-will employment to implement "thought-crime" is abhorrent, and by your own admission, has come to be a widespread societal phenomenon.