About This Googler's Manifesto
The amount of emotionally charged black and white thinking that permeates this debate is mind-boggling, as is the ability of the outraged side to create a straw man out of thin air through cherry-picking and blatant misinterpretation. Truly one of the most impressive displays of mental gymnastics I have seen and I&#x27;m not sure which is more terrifying - the idea that this is done unconsciously or consciously.<p>From the original manifesto:<p>&gt; [...] I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. [...]<p>&gt; [...] 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. [...]<p>&gt; [...] If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. [...]<p>&gt; [...] Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. [...]<p>&gt; [...] Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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. [...]<p>&gt; [...] 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. [...]<p>&gt; [...] 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). [...]<p>Gizmodo&#x27;s summary:<p>&gt; In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women.<p>From Zunger&#x27;s post:<p>&gt; You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.<p>How any person of average intelligence possessing a modest grasp of the English language can draw these conclusions is beyond me.<p>Granted there is an argument to be made for the manifesto&#x27;s author not doing the best possible job of expressing himself in such a way as to increase the likelihood of sparking a civil debate on what is clearly a very sensitive issue. I am also not the biggest fan of his preoccupation with the one-dimensional and in my opinion overly simplistic left&#x2F;right political spectrum.<p>I will not argue for or against the specific conclusions he draws in regard to the role of genetics in the different distribution of traits among men and women, as I have neither the time nor the interest to look into the research (nor the opportunity, really, as a number of links have been apparently omitted from the publication, which, one might assume, lead to sources the author was basing his arguments on).<p>What I do find fascinating however, and the reason I&#x27;m writing this, is that I see someone basically going &quot;guys, have we actually stopped to consider that maybe <i>that</i> could be one of the reasons why we&#x27;re observing <i>this</i> and if not why not - here&#x27;s what I think&quot; while doing everything humanly possible to emphasize that they are in no way denying that there is a problem and in no way suggesting that <i>that</i> is the only reason. And instead of getting &quot;yes we did and here&#x27;s what we concluded and why&quot; or &quot;no we didn&#x27;t, let&#x27;s talk about it&quot;, they&#x27;re viciously shamed and attacked for entertaining the very thought.<p>A comment here referred to this as thoughtcrime punishment and I couldn&#x27;t agree more. This is plain and simply dogma at work, and the way I see it, it has no place among intelligent people engaged in science and&#x2F;or engineering. And yet here we are.<p>We have no problem accepting that differing trait distribution between different genetic groups can be a significant factor in a disproportionate representation of some groups in certain fields - soldiers in combat roles, construction workers, athletes, etc. And yet when it comes to the brain, suggesting a similar difference is suddenly taboo.<p>Even before doing any research, the idea that the brain is somehow exempt from all of this seems highly questionable and would merit the most rigorous examination to confirm or reject.<p>Here&#x27;s a thought though - it doesn&#x27;t matter to this debate. We could talk about if&#x2F;why men are on average better&#x2F;worse than women in whatever and throw around studies until we are blue in the face, but in the end when someone wants to do a job, the only thing that should matter is - can that person deliver. We need to be focused on making sure that this is indeed the only thing that matters and let natural tendencies and capabilities produce whatever representation of genetic groups they produce and if it&#x27;s similar to the general population that&#x27;s fine and if it&#x27;s not, that&#x27;s fine too.<p>Let me emphasize again, that <i>we&#x27;re already doing this</i> in many fields. Everyone is not born equal. We know that&#x27;s true, we know enough about genetics to recognize that differing distribution of traits among genetic groups are a thing and yet we&#x27;re so terrified of being seen as racist or sexist, that we&#x27;ll keep a few precious blindspots no matter what and defend them to the death whenever someone dares suggest that we might want to shine a light on them.<p>Another thought - there are children growing up right now that don&#x27;t understand race. I guess some might even be lucky enough that they don&#x27;t understand gender. They see different people with different skin, hair, features, body shapes, genitals, skills, manners, likes and dislikes. They&#x27;d do perfectly fine going through life with the simple understanding that &#x27;yes, people are different&#x27;, but then we get to them and explain how, you see, this group of people is oppressing that group of people, these people are like this and those are like that, and instead of seeing individuals we teach them to see the emotionally charged baggage-ladden labels that we insist on slapping on everyone - black people and white people, men and women, gay and straight, African American, Hispanic American, Chinese American, Native American and so on.<p>Significant, lasting cultural change doesn&#x27;t happen overnight, it takes decades and it takes children looking at the world with fresh eyes and adults capable of recognising their biases and making sure to die without passing them on in order to make place for someone better.<p>Of course, discrimination is a problem that needs some solution now rather than in decades. It&#x27;s likely too late for the adults among us to erase our biases. We can recognize we have them, we can minimize them and we can put measures in place to make sure they can&#x27;t do too much damage - blind paper reviews&#x2F;auditions&#x2F;tests as well as bias awareness training strike me as solutions that can only do good.<p>Among other things, we&#x27;re most definitely missing out on brilliant female engineers in CS due to sexism and an often toxic environment, which is clearly a lose-lose situation for everyone. I think it&#x27;s worth considering that we might just be missing out on brilliant male engineers as well, due to affirmative action, which is also sexism.<p>Forcefully engineering and moulding society into whatever shape someone decided it&#x27;s supposed to have through positive discrimination isn&#x27;t change. It&#x27;s the appearance of change, while fueling social conflict, hurting economical, technological and scientific progress and drawing the lines that divide us, thus reinforcing the very foundation of racism, sexism, religious intolerance and any of the countless other stupid reasons we come up with to fight each other - seeing people as members of a group rather than individuals.<p>I&#x27;d like to suggest we take a step back and reevaluate whether we&#x27;re more interested in pragmatic solutions that genuinely lead to a stronger, happier and more harmonious society or in playing make-believe and indulging in some justice fantasy with a very questionable basis in reality.