publish "The Nadir of Reading Comprehension"

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md b/content/2017/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md
similarity index 96%
rename from content/drafts/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md
rename to content/2017/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md
index dae8a3e..6464d5b 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md
+++ b/content/2017/the-nadir-of-reading-comprehension.md
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 Title: The Nadir of Reading Comprehension
-Date: 2017-09-09
+Date: 2017-09-09 17:49
 Category: commentary
 Tags: discourse, news, sex differences
-Status: draft
 
 ["Against Discrimination"](http://www.nature.com/news/against-discrimination-1.22459), _Nature_ [(hat tip /u/PellegoIllud2 and /u/TheCid)](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6up9fw/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_august/dlytq28/?context=1):
 
@@ -12,6 +11,6 @@ But if you _actually read it_, the Google employee's memo [agrees completely](ht
 
 > I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. _Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions._
 
-The distressing thing about this whole affair (and others like it—I am old enough to remember the Larry Summers imbroglio back in 'aught-five) is the extent to which the vast majority of the outrage over Damore's document fails to engage with _what he actually said_. Damore is _very explicit_ about how he's making an argument about distributions. (I liked [Diana Fleischman's take](https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209).) Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and whether you approve or disapprove of his being fired, one would hope for people to be damned for the content of what they _actually said_, rather than a perceived tribal aura of sexism or anti-sexism. (One wonders exactly what hypothesized value of Cohen's _d_ separates good person's hypotheses from from _bad_ person's hypotheses.)
+The distressing thing about this whole affair (and others like it—I am old enough to remember the Larry Summers imbroglio back in 'aught-five) is the extent to which the vast majority of the outrage over Damore's document fails to engage with _what he actually said_. Damore is _very explicit_ about how he's making an argument about distributions. (I liked [Diana Fleischman's take](https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209).) Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and whether you approve or disapprove of his being fired, one would hope for people to be damned for the content of what they _actually said_, rather than a perceived tribal aura of sexism or anti-sexism. (One wonders exactly what hypothesized value of Cohen's _d_ separates good people's hypotheses from _bad_ people's hypotheses.)
 
 It would be one thing if it were just the middlebrow, the Twitter mobs and <em>Gizmodo</em>s of the world getting this wrong. But _Nature_! (Lest I too risk failing at reading comprehension, it's possible the intent of the reference to "the controversy over" is just to tie the anti-discrimination stance of the editorial to current events, without meaning to put words in Damore's mouth. But I'm not optimistic.)