There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments:
- We can debate anything
- However, some views are too harmful to be debated
- Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful
- We can debate anything
- However, some views are too harmful to be debated
- Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful
That's funny. Compared to the response I've seen against it, it seems extremely coherent, tactfully presented and scientifically sourced.
It's an internal memo for crying out loud. Compared to anything I've seen in any company I've worked with, this sets the bar for extreme professionalism.
The science is not really in doubt, surely, but the magnitude of the effects in the full context of our lives and history and cultural norms is complicated. And figuring out how to use experimental data to improve policy is hard.
The backlash is not surprising because, though he tried, he failed to be clear about what he means.
What is the best way?
> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. [...] This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than nearly all of the comments. (Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at Rutgers University)
> For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) (Geoffrey Miller, evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico)
If you have read the memo and found it incoherent, then please explain what part of it is incoherent. Here are some of the points made in its summary:
> [S]ilencing [people who disagree] has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Do you find those points incoherent? I find them to be clear. ("incoherent: expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.")
>But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe.
I would argue that even if he didn't mean to, "using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality" is the message he gave to many people. I do believe his argument is more complex than that, but it's not sufficiently accounting for this impression.
I'll continue reading. In the meantime, asking if I read the memo and showing me the definition of "incoherent" ... can we please have a respectful discussion? I'm happy to explain why I find the memo, as a whole, incoherent, with examples.
(Edit: changed "first" to "second" scientist)
And the next sentence:
> 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.
- This is bad communicating. It's incredibly vague about what % of the difference he thinks is biological, and what % is social/structural/historical, the things he completely fails to address. This "I'm just saying!" vagueness leaves the door open to an extremely wide range of interpretations. There's no argument there. It's all fudgy-hedgy. It's not coherent.
> I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
- This is where he wants to be. The high bar he sets for himself. The point that evidence should not be discounted because it doesn't fit the wished-for results is important. Results are results. His writing does not live up to what he establishes in this paragraph. He says "I hope it's clear" and he does qualify a lot of his statements with "I'm not saying xyz about ALL individuals" ... he's trying.
These are two points that give me the sense of an overall incoherent argument:
> Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
- This is manifestly ridiculous. Accepting the truth, that some differences between people are biological, does not mean that historical and cultural factors don't matter and can't be adjusted for, or that it is misguided to explicitly direct resources towards increasing diversity. That's a whole other debate, about how to do it, and who it's fair to. It IS arbitrary, and artificial, to mandate certain proportions of jobs be given to certain "diversity" groups. It's an imperfect solution to a stupid problem. I wish we didn't have the problem in the first place, but we do, and a big clumsy solution is better than no solution. But a lot of the value of diversity is not, as Geoffrey Miller posits in the article you linked, derived from those inherent (seemingly rather small?) biological differences between those people. It is in the much larger difference in how they have experienced life and the world since birth as a member of whatever group(s). He claims he things Google should "try to correct for existing biases" but not discriminate "just to increase the representation of women" ... well this is incoherent, because the second one is kind of the only mechanism to achieve the first one, isn't it? Can we correct for bias and cultural/historical/institutional effects without intentionally tipping the scale a little bit in the direction of the people affected by those issues?
That IS another, connected, thorny problem. I get that discrimination and suffering cuts both ways.
> Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
- It's UX all the way down. The whole company affects the UX. But in any case, the value knowledge of "outsiders" is not just about teaching Google how to SELL things to those same outsiders. Here he shows he fundamentally does not get why Google chooses to go out of its way to artificially increase diversity, and how it (at least in theory) helps the business be more successful overall. This is perhaps the most broadly "offensive" idea here.
> Prioritize intention.
- This is wishful thinking. Although, by and large, I do try to do this in my own life, and give people the benefit of the doubt, it is also incumbent on the person doing the communication to understand what they are saying and implying by their words and actions. We each have to manage that ourselves, and accept that fact that we will spend our whole lives learning to be better communicators. Not all communicative gestures can reveal their intentions, most can only be interpreted.
> Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
- I agree with this. However, I think he weighs the biological differences too heavily compared to the vast array of non-biological factors at play in the choices people make. They are all connected. I hope that most people don't dismiss the actual biology... it's more about, in the real world with actual individuals making choices about what to do in life, what factors may influence them and might some of those not yet be perfectly calibrated? I don't think 50/50 is the ideal target in every possible industry, but I do think we have still got a lot of intentional correcting to do before we remove structures that specifically support women, minorities, and others in succeeding once they have made a choice about what they want to do. This "not all differences are socially constructed" argument is almost a straw man, I think.. do serious people think all humans have identical biology and hormones? Hopefully not.
But ideally all humans would have identical freedom to choose without feeling like the very nature of their body is already closing doors to them before they even start. Which for thousands of years was the case, and is still the case in many places. It would be good to get away from that.
I agree with many points throughout his memo - respect for science, an overall sense of perspective to question whether we may have gone too far, etc. And do think that even if 50/50 men and women is not the exact natural balance for programmers, it is healthy and good for any business to try to roughly include a good sample of the many kinds of people that live in the world, and be attentive to that without going too crazy on exact ratios all the time (which maybe Google does?).
Policies that do this don't (and can't) address the biological component because, as he accepts in the memo, the aggregate effects are not really applicable to any specific individual.
And finally, while Jussim says he "gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right" and Miller says his claims are "are stated quite carefully" ... I vehemently disagree. I can't find where in the memo he claims anything other than something like "these things MAY have SOME effect on why women do not participate at 50%". Which is, on the face of it, of course, true. But how is that careful? How is that getting "the implications exactly right"? I think this is why he is in such hot water. He is really, really, loose with how much he thinks this affects things in real life.
I basically agree with Schmitt:
>Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes. At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too.
- you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as it's not something we say is harmful of course
So much back and forth