Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”
&gt; His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and&#x2F;or qualified for a Google job than men, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the “qualified” threshold.<p>I think its fair to say that not everyone shares that view.<p>This is probably the key to controversy in my mind. You could read it that way.<p>However, you can choose to interpret the sections about &#x27;Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate&#x27; and &#x27;Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.&#x27; as &#x27;some people we&#x27;re hiring don&#x27;t cut it, we should hire more white men&#x27;.<p>That&#x27;s not what it says. You don&#x27;t have to interpret it that way.<p>...but clearly <i>a lot of people did</i>.<p>My advice? Stop defending it. You can talk about these issues <i>without</i> this memo.<p>Forget the memo. The memo was stupid and misguided. Releasing it internally at work was unreservedly stupid. ...but what&#x27;s done is done.<p>Do you want to spend the next year talking about the memo, and the specifics of &#x27;did it or did it not <i>technically</i> say such and such&#x27;, or the actual issues he was trying to raise?