> 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.
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.