Episode 1009: James Damore

TL;DR: Rogan gives a sympathetic, unchallenged platform to James Damore — a software engineer with no credentials in psychology or biology — to defend a memo that experts across multiple fields say misrepresented the science on gender differences.

This episode aired shortly after Damore was fired from Google for an internal memo arguing that the underrepresentation of women in tech was partly explained by biological differences. Rogan treats the memo as straightforward science and the firing as straightforward censorship — neither framing holds up under scrutiny.

The Guest’s Credentials

James Damore holds a bachelor’s degree in molecular biology from the University of Illinois and started but did not complete a PhD program in systems biology at Harvard.
He was a software engineer, not a psychologist, evolutionary biologist, or social scientist.
The memo’s claims fall squarely within fields where Damore has no published research, no peer-reviewed work, and no professional standing.

The Memo’s Central Claims

The “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo argued:

Women on average have more “neuroticism,” more interest in “people rather than things,” lower “drive for status,” and a preference for cooperation over competition — and that these biologically-rooted differences explain the gender gap in tech.

Google’s diversity programs are therefore based on a flawed premise and amount to discrimination against men.

What the Evidence Says

The memo was widely criticized by scientists in the relevant fields for cherry-picking, misrepresentation, and exceeding what the cited studies actually support.

Suzanne Sadedin (evolutionary biologist): Wrote a detailed line-by-line rebuttal, calling the memo’s misuse of population genetics terminology like “heritability” a “glaring sign… that he is well out of his depth.” She characterized the argument as misrepresenting “the nature and significance of known sex differences.” Quora rebuttal via Forbes coverage
Gina Rippon (chair of cognitive neuroimaging, Aston University): Said the memo relied on data that was “suspect, outdated, irrelevant, or otherwise flawed.” Wikipedia summary with sources
Rosalind Barnett (psychologist, Brandeis): Concurred that Damore got the underlying science wrong.
Angela Saini (science journalist, author of Inferior): Said Damore “failed to understand the research he cited.” Wikipedia summary
Erin Giglio (UT Austin biologist): Published a comprehensive evidence-based rebuttal showing how Damore’s citations either didn’t support his conclusions or were drawn from contested literature. “The truth has got its boots on”
Heterodox Academy meta-analysis: Even this center-right academic group concluded that observed sex differences are “much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability” — undermining Damore’s framing of innate capability gaps. HxA analysis
David P. Schmitt (one of the researchers Damore cited): Said directly that he was “skeptical that such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace.” Scientific American

Specific Problems With the Science

Misuse of effect sizes. The studies Damore cited generally show small-to-moderate average differences with massive distributional overlap — not the kind of differences that could meaningfully explain a near-total gender gap in software engineering.
Citing Wikipedia as a primary source. The memo’s first scientific reference was a Wikipedia page, not the underlying peer-reviewed literature.
Ignoring the cross-cultural data. Countries with the most gender-egalitarian policies don’t all show the predicted “more biological” gender sorting; tech gender ratios vary dramatically across cultures (e.g., women make up roughly half of computer science graduates in Malaysia and India) — evidence inconsistent with a primarily biological explanation. Boston Globe
Confusing “biological” with “immutable.” Even where biological factors contribute, the memo conflates this with the claim that workplace interventions are therefore futile.

Joe Rogan’s Role

Rogan does not function as a skeptical interviewer here. Specifically:

He treats Damore’s memo as settled science rather than as a contested document written by a non-expert.
He does not raise any of the major published rebuttals from biologists, psychologists, or neuroscientists.
He frames the firing primarily as a free-speech / political-correctness story, sidestepping that the memo’s empirical claims are themselves disputed by domain experts.
He amplifies Damore’s framing that Google fired him for telling uncomfortable truths, rather than engaging with the substantive scientific critique.
Damore is invited to discuss claims outside his area of expertise (psychology, evolutionary biology, organizational science) with no counterweight.

This is a textbook example of the platforming pattern that recurs across JRE: a sympathetic long-form audience for a contested figure, with no expert pushback and no acknowledgment of the relevant scientific literature.

Why It Matters

The episode helped cement Damore as a hero figure in anti-diversity-program online communities, and the “the science is on my side” framing went largely unchallenged to an audience of millions. The memo continues to be cited as evidence that diversity efforts are scientifically baseless — even though the scientists whose work was cited have largely said it isn’t.