The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences?

If only we would start looking at people as individuals and not as groups we arbirarily define and lump people into, we might make some progress towards removing discrimination and bias in our society.

I think almost anyone would agree that we should not punish/reward any person for some arbitrary trait they can't control like their gender, race, sexual preference, etc. And that we should only care about the person's character, work ethic, and ability - to not so eloquently paraphrase MLK.

The fact that someone can agree with that above statement and then turn around and support policies/activism that reward or punish groups of people based on those very characteristics just mentioned is a viewpoint I honestly can't understand.

I would be very interested in hearing an honest argument as to why we should have more women in tech or more men in daycare or more X in Y, instead of more people in Y who like Y and are passionate about Y and want to improve the world through Y whether they are men or women or gender fluid or whatever they want to be.

>Damore argues that a company that was completely free of bias and discrimination would not end up with a 50/50 gender split in all job functions because there are population differences in some traits that might influence the jobs men and women seek out and succeed at. His memo is structured as an argument against a position he refers to as “the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment.”

Finally, someone actually gets it.

It's fascinating to me to watch different online cultures debate this and watch each culture cherry-pick the studies that best support their position. Do you believe in gender differences in personality and aptitude? You can find dozens of papers to support that position. Do you believe such differences do not exist? You can find dozens of papers to support that as well. There is a deluge of research on this topic going back decades--even centuries depending on your filters.

It's like the old nature vs nurture debate. I grew up with academics constantly bringing up the questions of blank slates versus inherent human nature in my schooling. Then I started hanging out with young Ph.Ds in a wide variety of sciences. I learned from them that the debate itself is generally regarded as nonsense by many modern academics. Anyone who has deeply immersed themselves in the research knows that there is a vastly complex web of interactions between genetics and environment that is impossible to untangle with our current tools and methodologies. Anyone who tells you otherwise is merely exposing their Dunning–Kruger.

That's how I feel about this gender-differences debate flaming up all week on HN. I completely understand the passions it raises on both sides, but everyone is talking past each other because no one is understands this subject well enough to be humbled by its incredible complexity and how much we still don't know about it.

Thus was a nice read, thanks for sharing.

2 comments I have received about how a narrative of diversity has ended up becoming about genderism being the only kind of diversity lens worth looking through:

- capable folks who are excluded because they are not part of the majority already have to deal with the challenge of having to be a 1.x times better than the average person getting the position.

- folks in the majority negatively affected by having more competition for those positions may be upset they may have to be 1.25 times as good as the other guy had to, which is frightening.

There is no question people aren't the same for many reasons.

There is no question that people who are competent for a role are overlooked. I don't think this gender conversation is meant to head towards a conversation of a new form of casteism, or eugenics... but certainly shares some similarities of what people should, or shouldn't be allowed to do.

You can come to an understanding as to why the state of things are the way they are through careful research and positing. You cannot, however, use said research to draw an absolute conclusion on any group of people, as to say that X won't ever show any interest in Y because studies show X, on average, will pursue Z.

Additionally, after reading so many comments from the past few days and generally in the past on HN, it seems to me that everyone is desperate to prove either 1 or 0 of any given argument or problem in life, with any number of studies or figures. I feel people here really miss the mark when it comes to social issues, such as those faced by minorities and other groups that have historically felt marginalized by society. It really is not about 50/50 gender ratios or balanced races in the workplace, nor is it about marginalizing "The White Man", its about getting people to understand that there are issues that people face that you may not ever face in your life, but they do exist, whether you want to believe it or not, and it does not help when people dismiss those issues by pointing to studies or personal anecdotes, the world really does not revolve around any one person or group or thought perception.

This seems like the only decent non-ranty response so far. Skip to the conclusions if it is too long.

Heterodox, indeed!