Some random dude’s thoughts on the thing ‘everyone’ is talking about…
A very long, line-by-line, written ‘reaction’ on the (now) ex-googler’s 10-page opinion piece on “Google’s Idealogial Echo Chamber”
Synopsis: The premise is a valid contrarian view that needs/deserves to be voiced, but the evidence and manner of voicing the opinion is not only intellectually irresponsible, but also a poor example of an intellectual argument. The backlash, and most definitely the ad hominem attacks, are counterproductive at the least, but I can certainly understand why so many are so angry.
If anything, those that are ‘tired of explaining’ or feel no need to ‘constantly debunk what has been proven to be myth or bad science' should simply step up by stepping back and allow others to dissect this. Resorting to ad hominems only serve to weaken and cheapen the facts.
If you’re actually interested in reading through this, please take your time and feel free to take it in parts or even comment as you go.
He wants a discussion, lets have a discussion.
Below is a mixture of my initial reaction, revisited thoughts, and results of my ongoing research.
Enjoy. 😁😉
Google engineer writes an anti-diversity screed
At first, when I saw the headline on LinkedIn, I was like;
‘Woah! Google is anti-diversity?? Figures… a lot of big companies just make overtures of being champions of progress…
Then I clicked on it and read through the various posts’ headlines and intro paragraphs and I was like;
‘Oh damn, somebody at Google is a racist, sexist and pretty vocal about it! Or is this about them being more sexist than racist? Is this a thing Google is implicit in?
OH! This dude wrote a whole 10-page essay on this?? Really now? I wonder what he’s on about…any new BS, pseudo-logic?
After reading more into a few people’s posts…
‘Ah.. I see… so he’s disgruntled with the diversity efforts that Google is taking to (supposedly) be more inclusive?.. Some are saying he’s criticizing affirmative action and saying women can’t be programmers… But they’re mostly just calling him a ‘racist’ ‘sexist’ old-guard conservative… Hmmm… Now, from previous experience (like Philip DeFranco, the most unbiased news reporter/youtuber I’ve found thus far, being deemed a supremacist/alt-right), I know mainstream media has a penchant for sensationalizing and outright slandering people… Let me read this guy’s 10-page ‘manifesto’ (or maybe a tldr (, and why do they call it a ‘screed’… is that a typo?)) to see what he’s actually saying. Perhaps he has some good points. My bit of experience in the HR tech field makes it clear that a lot of businesses dont actually care about diversity, just checking off boxes….’
Then I saw Gizmodo’s piece and dived in:
A software engineer’s 10-page screed against Google’s diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+. The document’s existence was first reported by Motherboard, and Gizmodo has obtained it in full.
Wait… Google has an ‘internal meme network’?? Seriously?.. AND THEY ACTUALLY USE GOOGLE+??? Wow… Where’s the 10 pager on that??
In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,”
I can totally get that… echo chambers are a huge problem… I really should write on that…
Premise: before, people had almost physical ‘echo chambers’ by practically being forced to stay in their little villages and either believe the same as others or be ostracized… but now we’ve created our own ‘little villages’ all online… Anyways… okay, I can get with the echo chamber problem.
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. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided.
Holy Sht!! Did this dude really say all that?? He got fired right!? Did he want to get fired?? Holy… no way… he couldnt have actually said that mess right??
I mean… sure there are psychological differences in people… but that doesnt have anything to do with whether they’ll be a good programmer or not… if anything, those differences helps you approach programming problems in different, unique ways. Im not a ‘real’ programmer… but I would never have come up with my own 3D web stuff in a Ruby codecamp if it wasnt for my own flavor of weird psychology… But idk… he’s saying their diversity initiatives are simply ‘misguided,’ not outright wrong or bad … maybe he has more nuance… lemme get through this and read what he’s actually saying.
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
I thought they said it was titled with…. oh… I guess he added this response in the front after that backlash hahaha smh…
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.
Okay… doesnt sound like a racist, sexist, conservative…
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
Hmmm…. is he going to get into math and statistics?
If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.
Hmmm okay… true… cant solve the problem by treating the symptoms and ignoring the actual problem. Choosing to not talk about unpopular truths or problems wont make them just go away…
Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
Hmmm okay… and you’re not afraid of being fired? I wonder why that is… And why is this something others have ‘PMed’ their thanks? Even after its out there? Are they ashamed to thank you in public? Really that scared? Hmm, better be good…
TL:DR
Thanks for the tldr!
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
Big words here… I agree this is a problem, on both sides really… people not willing to have actual debate. I’ve always said that if something is right, than it will be right in the light of facts, so may as well burn away the ignorance with truth. Bring on the naysayers, as long as they’re open to real debate, than its a worthy cause.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
Hmmm, fair point as well. This also makes it so that the ‘other point’, in this case the conservatives or even (white) folk who are constantly told they’re priveledged, just simmer in the dark… not actually learning or growing, just getting bitter. Thus why we have Trump…
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Indeed… and authoritarian is almost never the right way to fix things.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
This is Mostly true though… many are… especially in modern society. Says something that this ‘extreme’ thing is a truth… goes to show how far gone society is…
The fact that oppression is generational, means it had long enough to impose (epi)genetic variations in oppressed peoples. Therefore current differences in a lot of traits, predilections, or even interests could be traced back to oppression.
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Eh… I’ve always had trouble with this… I personally believe those in power should just get out of the way so we can fix it ourselves… but clearly that is unrealistic, because those with power rarely can resist the lure of flexing or abusing their power and almost never distribute it out. So that unfortunately means some authoritarian figure or rules may have to (‘forcefully’) provide safety, or at least a fair chance from other authoritarian oppressors. As it is now, if we dont have anyone looking out for us (PoC, the black community particularly), then we wont be able to stand up against our oppressors (directly or indirectly). This lack of authority has even played a big part in ‘race-based' slavery and ensuing centuries of oppresive racism.
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.
Hmmm… what exactly do you mean by that? I understand there cant really be exactly ‘50% representation’ if only a minority makes up the population… but you still want proportional representation, and to guard against mob mentality of the majority over that minority… plus the global(ized) climate means that previous minorities are no longer the minority…
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Also something I struggle against… ‘discrimination’ at its core means to tell the difference between… in a political sense it implies an application of prejudice, bias, and/or stereotypes to restrict or limit someone on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or disability… but ‘discrimination to reach equal’ is kinda one of those things you kinda need to combat against the active (yet sometimes indirect) discrimination that is creating an unequal playing field in the first place! What other ways can we use to be equal, when the whole playing field is set up against you? When much of the established way of doing things is inherently ‘unfair, divisive, and bad for business’.. yet it is still the way people do business… what do you do? Is it okay to fight fire with fire? Idk…. I always wish we can rise above it and be better… but we have to get to a point where being noble even matters instead of just getting killed/starved for it.
Gah… let me read the rest of this… maybe he provides more details as to what exactly he’s proposing here…
Background [1]
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
Oh, he has sources or citations? I’ll have to look into those… good job for putting them in. Always good to see where people get their data.
I agree with what he’s saying here too… We try to do good, but we (often) can fck up. Talking and communicating is pretty much the only (peaceful) way to solve these fck ups. We have dozens of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, its harder to fall into them, or at least easier to recognize them, when you’re speaking with someone who comes from a different perspective. You tend to realize your prejudices/stereotypes and fix them on the fly. Conversation is great.
This is a great setup… lets get into this.
Google’s biases
Great! Always good to put your biases upfront if you can.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases.
Hmmm.. really? I didnt know Google did that… that’s nice…
What do you mean by ‘moral biases’ though? And by extension… what kind of unconscious biases are we talking here?
I suppose people in the company know… but still… gotta define things to make them crystal clear on what you mean.
Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases.
Eh? What do you mean? Moral preferences how so? Oh okay .. I suppose by conservatives being more laisez faire and anti-government vs the liberals being more for government intervention… idk if thats ‘morals’ though…
Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Oh… left as in?? I think Google is pretty conservative considering their monopolistic tendencies and attempts to subvert or just work around governments… What prejudices do you mean? Does ‘leaning left’ automatically grant you some prejudice? Hmmm… And why even say ‘left’? Why not just be clear and say what you mean? Exactly what Do you mean?!?
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Oh…. Sht… Dude… really??? ‘Compassion for the weak’ is a BIAS AND A PREJUDICE? What in the…?? Is this some ‘survival of the fittest’ bull-… You know what… lemme just read through these other things… get some context…
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Hmmm… Okay, I see where he’s going here… I think… but what you mean by ‘Change is good (unstable)’… change IS good.< period… thats why evolution is a thing… Okay.. perhaps thats my bias… What’s true is that change is inevitable.
To assume change == unstable is a false equivalency and a bad/flawed way to go into this…. And Im Still on that ‘compassion for the weak’ thing… like.. ugh.. smh…
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Ehhh… Now that I read all of these… really sounds like you’re starting off on the wrong foot… I’ll give you some of these are legit ‘biases’… but most of these are simply aspects of human nature that you’re conflating into either side… GAH… this is why labels are stupid… sure its useful for general ideas or assessing threats.. but not when you’re talking about People… folks are just too complex…
And if you’re going to say ‘compassion for the weak’ (completely blind to the weight in which that wording implies/carries) than a more fair and equal quality for the right should be ‘Might makes right’… or ‘Subservience to the strong/authority’ like in wild animals where the other males have to either serve the alpha male or leave and the females are practically owned by him…which in itself is actually a myth of nature.
And ‘change is dangerous’ != stable…
And does the typical ‘right’ really embody the idea of Pragmaticism?? Ehhhh
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company.
Yes…. but what you have above is not really a rundown of either viewpoint… its oversimplified, and borderline (if not completely) inaccurate. The real ‘left and right’ are for more nebulous and have more to do with administrative ideologies rather than hard-and-fast traits…
If anything, perhaps you should link to this to be more comprehensive:
And please read through these Quora answers on the difference Left/Right.
A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Ehhhhhh… These seem far more appropriate for the pros/cons of big vs small companies… Most companies are inherently (economic) conservatives due to their being private organizations who usually avoid having to pay/deal with the government.
Either way, these are pretty damning things on both accounts… We’ve seen examples of all of these types of problems in (usually large) companies in the news recently.
You got companies like Oracle and WalMart (and the government) too big to react to the market or too hierarchical to make quick decisions… Tech companies like LinkedIn and Twitter not trusting their devs to create/utilize APIs… Facebook and Google ashamed of their core business (ie ads), trying to pass themselves as media companies or as startups still… Airline companies overly trust their employees to not be assholes… And startups trust their competitors too much to not buy them (ie building their platforms on Google and Apple who buy startups out in areas that they want to get into).
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases,
Correct… but that means you need to put all of this in the right light… and have the actual facts.
but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias
Ah… and here is the problem. This is the wrong light. You’re assuming ‘diversity and inclusion’ is a thing ‘liberal lefties’ do… Instead of them being a human concept any logical human would want to do. You’re thus falling into the illogical conflation of politics and religion that much of politics have fallen into. Worse yet, you’re conflating business with politics and religion.
has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
Hmmm… so I think I understand what this is about… You’re essentially worried/saying that Google is being ‘extreme’ by assuming ‘all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment’… idk what Google is doing.. but I do know that differential treatment is such a large factor that anything else doesnt matter. Just like in a software product with bugs, you find and kill the biggest ones first… you dont worry about the small ones that barely make a difference even if they were identified. But you seem to either disagree that differential treatment is that big a deal, or you’re just being salty/pedantic in your conflict against absolutism. Sure, not literally ‘all’ differences in outcome come from our unjust society… but so much of them do that we first need to evaluate our unjust society before we can consider/figure out how to deal with those who are born with limiting differences.
Again, the authoritarian piece is (arguably) a necessity as long as the current people in power seek to use their authority to retain the inequality we all know has been rampant in society.
But I agree that we should consider more… cooperative, methods of achieving equality. Rare is it that your big bro coming in to forcibly handle things actually handles it for you.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. 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.
Okay… cool. Lets get into these details. There is indeed a lot more to the story like biases (unconscious or otherwise)… stuff like the whole pipeline, education, even advertisement and marketing that essentially works like brainstorming ideas of gender roles/abilities. Extremely important to talk about this.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
Umm… Hmmmm… eh…. biological? Not the way I wouldve gone… I dont think there are any biological discussions that matters in this area… we arent talking sports or anything, and even those are proven to be less sure than people thought. But okay… lets see what you mean.
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Hmm… okay.. what are you getting to? Prenatal testosterone? What does that have to do with what we’re supposed to be talking about?
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
Eh… I’d like to see a study on this… not to mention that just because you are castrated and raised with/as females doesnt mean a boy would mistake themselves as girls. I would like to see if you or this study is also taking note of typical masculinity and feminity… Even though those are largely societal as well… either way, indeed males and females have many differences beyond their private parts. Still.. what does this have to do with Google? Hmmm
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Mmmkay… you really should point out exactly what traits you mean… some are not proven to be heritable (ie behaviours), the only ‘traits’ that are roughly proven to be inheritable are personality traits… sometimes… like general introversion vs extroversion… but these themselves are very general. More like rough molds rather than any sort of details. Plus, they are far more shaped by a whole slew of environmental factors.
(Even this latter one does not necessarily apply to human complexity, but shows that behavior is equal parts nature and nurture, meaning its not ‘highly heritable’ but instead more of a rough framework filled in and shaped by the circumstances of which one experiences.)
This is why definitions matter… gotta be clear on what you mean before anyone can fairly agree or disagree.
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.”
Yeah… I’d hope you’re not saying that…
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.
Hmmm… What differences do you mean?? As I’ve seen it (and as its been proven).. its not the differences that inherently prevents women being leaders for instance or even that it explains why there is a low representation of women in certain roles; the problem is that others view their differences as detrimental or unwanted on the premise of their being different from their own… not because those differences actually matter (in the negative).
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.
Wait What?? No duh!! Isnt this a direct contradiction to your last sentence?? Dude… the fact that ‘you cant say anything about an individual given these population level distributions’ means you cant be justified in you’re assuming an individual (woman) is more or less representative or some similar such thing… Im not quite sure what you’re saying… but it seems to be a bit backwards here…
Its the fact that women are treated differently/unfairly due to their differences thats the problem… not that they’re what… supposed to be treated differently due to their differences? Is that what you’re saying? That biology mandates there be an unequal representation of women in tech or leadership or similar positions that are apparently biologically incompatible with them? Is THAT what you’re saying??
Oh dude… I hope not… maybe I misread… or am jumping to conclusions… lets see what else you got.
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas.
Hmmm.. Now you’re speaking as if you’re stating facts, but have no citations…??? Sure these are the stereotypes… and Im tempted to agree on some points… but eh… we need to speak in facts here. Furthermore, we should control for environmental/societal influences.
Also, we need definitions… what do you mean by ‘aesthetics rather than ideas’?? I am tempted to agree because in my relationship, Im usually the ideas person and she’s the writer/aesthetics person… but thats only because we assume that ideas = nebulous concepts, aesthetics = clear images, and only in the context of general communications flow. As in when we’re developing our storyverse or talking about building a business or something. When it comes to *understanding* and interacting with the world, Im far more visual. I need to see/taste/feel the aesthetics of something before I can make a decision, she needs to internalize and agree with the ideas behind the product before she buys or participates in something.
Granted, that is just my anecdotal story.
Pinterest prides itself as ‘the place for ideas on the internet’ and its by far used by women. It is highly visual though. Is that what you mean? Guys using more things like Reddit vs girls more things like Pinterest?
Relevance? Gah… maybe I just gotta wait for you to make your point (clearer)
Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
Again… another stereotype… and one that truly may be due to society only allowing women to have more people-oriented roles (which tend to be lower-paid… despite the criticality and difficulty of having to deal with other people all the time. And how in the world is this the same as empathy vs systemizing?? Are you really saying that women are more empathetic and men more systemic? And worse that these are mutually exclusive?
Please give me your citations my dude… either way,
Anecdotally, my GF hates dealing with people… she only likes dealing with children (of a certain age and type) because she deems herself more the mother-type… but my mother, who has 6 kids… would not be caught dead having to deal with other people’s children much, she also is very non-people-oriented.
I’m more empathetic, but that is admittedly more in idealistic circumstances; when it comes to community service, my GF is more empathetic, while I believe in acting on a more systemic level… is that what you mean?? But even those assumptions are based largely on situational roles, on circumstance, on environment, etc; such that these over-generalized statements are largely useless.
After getting ahold of your ‘original’ paper with citations… I must say that ‘empathizing vs systemizing’ is not the same as ‘people vs things’. And ‘People vs Things’ does not explain why there is such a low representation of women in tech, and especially not in leadership both of which are fairly, if not definitely, people-oriented. Furthermore, the wiki you used as a citation shouldve been only used for you to find real sources. That wiki of E-S theory is itself flagged for being poorly cited.
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Yeah… in part… an incredibly small part… And again, where are your citations? Maybe all that was taken out when they removed the hyperlinks… still, an in-text shoutout would do to support such authoritative statements.
I suppose it wouldnt do to share more anecdotal ‘evidence’ about the great programmers I know that happened to be women… and that also contributed amazing value due to their unique perspective (like on how to build a machine learning algorithm that doesnt incorporate biases)…
Oh and I had a great Tweet while writing this that shows how wrong you are here:
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
Pfffffft… You’re saying women who are extraverted are more ‘gregarious’ rather than assertive?? That in and of itself applies a value-based judgement on this trait. And what about the very real problem with assertive women being seen as ‘bossy’ or less likable/cold merely because they are assertive?
I personally wonder if people confuse (societally forced) compliance/subservience for ‘agreeableness’…if women were always at risk of physical harm when they show dissent or reject a man… wouldnt that coerce them to adapt a habit of being more agreeable (and neurotic)?? Therefore, even the existence of a genetic predisposition could very well have been caused by sexist or misogynistic treatment.
I think this is something every man should read before they start trying to ‘mansplain’ why women dont typically ‘just speak up’ and ‘be more assertive’...
(Just the first page is incredibly insightful, but I urge you to read and internalize the rest)
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
This is something I sometimes struggle with myself… I wonder why there doesnt seem to be as many programs to help me be more confident when negotiating or speaking up and such… but then I realize that’s simply because society is already set up in my favor (as a man… but thats kind of offset by being a PoC, plus being poor, on top of being raised in a generally Haitian household where speaking up to authority is frowned upon…)… I guess that means its not really a women’s issue? Once again an issue of an unjust society that tends to be more unjust towards women (and PoC women especially).
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
You know… neuroticism was once said to be the most important/majority trait of a programmer… Interesting fact.
Nonetheless, I do wonder if women at google report higher levels of anxiety due to some nebulous neurotic trait (also something easily understood if you read that article)… or because of the very real problems of sexism in the tech industry.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
I’ll have to look at wherever you quoted that from… but, off the bat… I can tell you that the gender gap problem is not that we have a lot of jobs that are predominantly male or female… the problem is that the vast majority (if not all) roles/jobs that are predominantly female ‘happen’ to be lower paid… as if they were less valuable. Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, HR, etc… On top of that, those in the *same exact position* are paid less… for no reason at all than (likely) because they are female.
The problem is not that people are different… the problem is that certain folks (ie biased, sexist, prejudiced, or otherwise ignorant) dont *respect* those differences; and certainly dont see those differences as equal.
Its like much of society inherently thinks Red is a better color than Blue… just because Red happens to have had overt power in getting what it wanted. Red could practically take someone’s attention by force… Does that mean Red is a better color and Blue doesn’t deserve the same respect for all it does? Does that mean Red is better than *all* other colors because of this inherent advantage in assertiveness?
No… of course not… every color has its use, and every color can be used for another purpose than it happens to typically be used for… And each of those uses and colors should be respected both for and despite its differences. Sure, you can have your favorite color… but you’re obviously being illogical when you try to assert some inherent ‘supremacy’ or ‘disability.’
But unlike colors, humans are far, far, far more dynamic and complex and flexible… therefore, any further metaphors stops here.
Men’s higher drive for status
Eh… doesnt seem like a good setup here… already one can say that a lot of men, maybe even a majority of men, dont care for ‘status’… just stability in income/lifestyle due to society’s expectations that a man be the primary breadwinners… Sure this made sense in hunter-gatherer cultures… Maybe even in agricultural, but any retention of this concept past industrialism has simply been (literally) grandfathered in rather than logical or fair for either party.
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
High paying jobs are inherently ‘stressful’ now??… I suppose you’ve never been in a room with 24 kids… or in a hospital room,… Sure, these ‘high paying jobs’ are typically more risky and have higher thresholds of responsbility… but only because of the heavily male or monetarily-skewed definitions. If you define risk or stress as something that has a high impact on others… than everyone would agree that the (egregiously) lowest paying jobs in our nation, such as teaching, are actually some of the most high-stress and high-risk areas, due to their responsibility to mold the vary futures and skills of the world’s youth…
Check again on how many hours those high-paying jobs require… and cross reference them with low-paying jobs… I think you’ll find something very interesting…
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.
Pushing?? More like rolling out the carpet for, when you compare the difficulty for women who literally have all the same skills and qualifications and experience…
But I do agree that society has a problem with expecting men to chase status rather than fulfillment.
Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
You have it backwards here…. the (conclusively biological) forces that led exclusively men into dangerous jobs simply grandfathered men into taking the ‘hard’ tech jobs (when women were only allowed to do the ‘computer’ work of raw calculations..) If anything, what ‘forced’ men into taking high-pay jobs was the patriarchal stereotypes that men were leaders and women followers/supporters.
Again, I do still agree that men shouldnt be so ‘forced’ into those positions, often times undeservedly.
Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
You’re entire argument so far is based on rampant ‘discrimination’… ie ‘discerning the difference’, between males and females… but I’ll of course assume you mean political/oppressive discrimination…
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Again, not at all an accurate statement… and far too nebulous to create actions from.
My limited time as a programmer, though often filled with hours of staring at my computer screen, has been rife with people-oriented responsibilities. As a PM and a team leader who has led several teams of (Ivy League) college kids… many of which were programmers… ugh… Its incredibly important that all programmers be somewhat people-oriented. Whether backend or frontend… I cant tell you how many times an intern thought they could just bang out some code without communicating with me or the team ended up with them returning some mess (no matter how well coded) that was simply incapable of actually being used or built on by the team due lack of communication (verbally, via code comments, or otherwise).
Now, as I’m working with real devs with over 15 years experience… I can say that communication is still important. They themselves need requirements set out and user stories described that are only made when there is ample communication between us.
Idk how its done at Google… but I suspect that nothing (good) gets done by just sitting in a corner and bunking out code without communicating with anyone.
We even have ample studies (many by Google) that shows the best code/products are those created by programmers who understand people/their customers…
Women on average are more cooperative
Source… This article about personality traits in programmers highlights studies that show how even (in the limited circumstance) when women are more cooperative.. the difference is so small as to be nearly negligible.
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Competitiveness is not exclusive to gender… and again, anxiety may be due to culture rather than work. Also, stress is relative.
But… kudos on trying to be fair…. I guess?
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Source. Either way… this is almost certainly a necessity of women having to actually carry and release a whole nother human into this world, while men can (unfortunately) just walk away from this duty. We seriously need to re-evaluate a culture that punishes women for this just as you would look down on a culture that blames men for having dicks…
They might say something like, ‘Testosterone = aggression, therefore men are violent. Oh and because men tend to like things over people means their lack of representation in teaching is due to their biological differences. So any attempts at helping balance that is misguided.’ When in reality, the fact that we can even be aware of genetic differences and discrimination means we have the opportunity and responsibility to help level the playing field. I highly doubt women would be against or feel threatened if they started doing men-only teaching classes or something.
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
Or… you know… respecting women for the sht they gotta go through and not assuming they cant be a leader because of it.
Oh, and actually respecting women who are leaders, rather than automatically assuming they’re unfit.
But yes… truly endorsing part-time work will be better for our culture. Idk if it will keep more women in tech, but sure as hell would help the middle class and raise healthy families and create an overall better work-life balance for all.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
True.
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Or maybe we’ll see that being a leader doesnt mean being masculine…
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google — with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
Here’s an idea… stop trying to worry about who has more hours, and worry about who’s making the best of the hours they have.
Make better products.
Google has some serious issues with making good, reliable products on its own, as well as with communicating its changes. If its full of people like you who think programming is a solo sport that is supposed to be male-dominant… than that explains a lot.
No doubt Google is very successful, but dont forget that much of success is not due to the best products on the market, but the ability to find, buy, and absorb the best products/talent as well as creating a marketplace for others to do business. Therefore, because googles’ products are inherently and irrefutably people-oriented (ads, cloud, and youtube) than what’s best for Google is ensuring it maximizes its ability to connect with each of its customer-types…. That means diversity is bottom-line need. Which is the real reason why Google is even trying so hard… not because its the right thing to do or because of ‘left leaning’… but because its more profitable, across the board.
Im not saying that no Googlers care about actual diversity… Im just stating the very real circumstances of Google being a multi-billion dollar conglomerate which has long ago stopped being a startup that truly wants to change the world.
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
Again… something I’m conflicted against… but cant find a better solution. Until the playing field is equal, some ‘handicap’ is needed…
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
What do you mean by this? Especially by ‘special treatment’?? If you mean the privilege of discrimination sure… that’s special…
But seriously. Need more details. As much ‘special treatment’ is usually just a way to offset the inherent biases and oppressions of society that many who benefit from these inequities often refuse to even admit.
Thats like a kid whose dad stole all the neighborhood toys for his son to play with, then complaining and whining about having to let the neighborhood kids play with his (stolen) toys. Regardless of what the kid (chooses to) knows, and chances are somebody has tried to tell him, he’s wrong…
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Woooaah there… big accusations here… and something that has been said/debunked many times in different realms…
You really need to include details and sources here. Still… you’d be wrong. As 99 times out of 10… there is no bar being lowered, there’s simply a bar being moved from the door that was blocking perfectly qualified people. Worse yet, that bar used to lock them out also led to their having far less opportunity to become qualified…
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Can you have a team thats ‘too diverse’?? Hmmmm
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
‘Left ideology’… ugh… But, dude, there’s plenty of research that says diversity and inclusion is simply the right thing to do…
I dont think its about ‘left or right’ … its about making the workplace tolerable and healthy for all people.
The biggest problem in tech is that women (and minorities) simply dont feel comfortable or accepted in tech cultures that are
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values.
Indeed…
Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).
WOOOOOAAAAAHHHHH!!! Seriously??? SERIOUSLY??? IQ has time and again been disproven to be a genetic factor.
Its clearly a factor of education (or lack thereof), almost wholly due to unjust society limiting and discriminating against a group of peoples.
And of course there are biological sex differences… the real problem is the debate on how much biology/genetics plays a role in sexual identity or attraction.
Therefore, its the ‘right’ that tends to deny science proving that biology is not a factor in just about every inequality outside of physical ability.
Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
Seriously going to have to see what evidence you may be referencing… as the science is pretty damn certain…. and by your logic, shouldnt the fact there are few climate scientists and evolutionary biologists on the right automatically mean climate change and evolutionary biologists (ie a litany of paleontologists, archaeologists, etc) “creates enormous confirmation bias, changes whats being studied, and maintains myths like” evolution??
Again… I really dont think it right to claim that science is a thing leftists do… or that a scientists’ political leanings (learnings?) automatically makes them biased. Any good scientist knows they must do as much as they possibly can to check their bias, not to mention the peer-review process…
Still… I’ll not be so pedantic and do my own research…
After reading this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/
I must agree that there needs to be more intellectual diversity. Too bad you have a terribly psuedo-intellectual way of proving your point.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak,
Such a statement is not only wrong and nebulous, but also rude and stupid. The social left (as I am assuming that is what you keep meaning to say but never defined) is a champion of equality, particularly of a level playing field, and freedom to change. It seeks to look out for those who society has wronged or otherwise disregard. Throughout history, that has largely meant the working class, but also (recently) includes minorities, women, and lgbtq. These aren’t ‘weak’ people… these are people.
humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men.
I think you meant to say because women carry and bear whole new human beings… but are physically weaker in bicep area, in which means they’re far less likely to win against an aggressive male.
We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10].
I believe this is indeed a big societal problem. But also one men created by pushing forth (false) ideas of the ‘alpha male.’
Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression.
Largely because nearly every difference between men and women is treated as a case of superiority vs inferiority.
As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
One cannot merely dismiss the very real fact of priveledge in a patriarchial or society… ie that the grass has historically been watered far more healthily on the male ‘side of the lawn.’
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11],
You mean compassion for those who are systematically oppressed or discriminated against?
which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I agree that over-sensitive PC-authoritarian culture is indeed a problem.
I just am really, really having a hard time seeing this as a good way of talking about it. You’re essentially defeating your own arguments by using tired old psuedo-intellectual arguments. The same flawed logic that has not only been disproved, but that has been used against the working class, to justify chattel slavery, and to rule of commoners in monarchist times.
If you are going to viably critique PC-culture and the authoritarian left, at the very least, please learn how to make solid arguments and use actual logic.
Suggestions
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).
I 100% agree with this… and its utterly tragic that most of your arguments and assumptions completely go against this and cloud your ‘larger point.’
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
I understand where you’re going with this… but much of humanity is driven by morals. It is our morals that determine why we do and believe what we do.
Google’s own catchphrase for a long time was ‘Dont be evil.’ A moralistic statement (that incidentally led them to do some ‘evil’ things in terms of corporativism). Sounds like you dont even belong at Google, or in tech/startups, where the vast majority are driven by a moralistic desire to change the world.
Even ‘costs and benefits’ is largely a matter of morality. As it matters how you achieve profit, on what you spend costs, and what is considered a benefit.
What I think you should (be trying to) say is that we must de-couple emotions from fact, and not be reactionary. End the victimization culture. Focus not on who is a victim, but instead on how to empower as many people as possible (or at least those who are disempowered).
Stop alienating conservatives.
This is a huge problem in the political landscape of the world in general. I think the root causes is people foolishly identifying themselves as conservative or liberal, and then on top of that assuming anyone not like them is wrong/stupid/evil.
This is a problem on both sides…
Liberals need to stop assuming conservatives are ‘deplorable’ or ‘creationsits’
Conservatives need to stop assuming liberals are ‘stupid’ or ‘communists’
Communication is a two-way street.
Personally though, I must admit that I have a very hard time encouraging many liberals I know to communicate more with conservatives that are anti-science and often-times racist, sexist, homophobic or just arrogantly ignorant.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
I very much agree… albeit I think political orientation is woefully overstated and way too bipartisan. Most people are a mixed bag, and should communicate as such instead of picking a team as if this was a sporting event.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
I agree… and I also understand why it is like this. Progressive environments are inherently at odds with conservatives who want to keep the status quo. Conservatives have had the power for almost a century now… and have thus retained the status quo (meaning much of the power, riches, and social norms) for decades. This is not healthy for any society. Progressives have only recently ‘won’ in a few social areas but even those are perilous…
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
I wonder why they call it ‘conscientiousness’ and simply not compliance or hierarchical…
Regardless, I agree. Just note that if conservatives are going to be intolerant themselves, and hold the power to then limit another’s rights/freedom due to their intolerance… then that is another matter entirely.
Now you’re ‘breaking the peace-treaty’… (article)
But yes, people should not be marginalized just for what they believe in, nor should they try to impose their beliefs on others, nor should people have the right to limit the rights or reasonable freedoms (ie pretty much any non-violent thing) of others.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
It really is tragic that what you’ve been concentrating on is a very poor excuse for intellectual rigor or valid arguments.
I almost feel like making your argument for you… because I see that you’re not *trying* to say women (or minorities) dont deserve their jobs at Google or in Tech or as Leaders… you’re just piss poor at making it clear that the real problem is an over-reach and inherently faulty way of improving diversity and inclusion.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
I agree… but again, you did fck-all at actually mentioning non-discriminatory practices. What you suggested are practices based intrinsic discrimination much the same as the mess that got us here.
Some true non-discriminatory practices would not be sufficient, because you have to double check and reinforce certain programs and classes to ensure that its reaching the people that need them.
For instance, if you have a programming class for women… its for women typically because a gender-neutral class would not just have a majority of men by default, but an extra-majority… meaning the fact that there is a majority would make men assume they are better fit, and make women assume that this is not a class for them.
So how do you create a non-discriminatory class when the current environment is predatorily discriminatory?? The only way we know how is to ‘over-correct’ by restricting the class for women only.
I wish there was a better way… but until we figure out how to create a system to check our biases and realize when we’re taking a valid difference and essentially moralizing by saying more men means women dont belong or are supposed to be the minority.
Maybe Google should work on a machine learning algorithm that can learn how bias works and thus point out when/how we’re being biased….
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discussion is always great. Just know the difference between constructive and destructive ‘honesty.’
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.
No…. diversity in the workplace has been proven to be very much profitable and beneficial. In fact, many studies show that women tend to be better leaders…
Furthermore, if you look at the actual difference between Software Engineering and Computer Science (article) You’ll see that, according to your own (poorly put-together) arguments, women should dominate the SWE field.
But yes, many (tech) companies do a poor job at actually increasing diversity… many only focus on ‘increasing the representation of women (and minorities) in tech’ rather than making the workplace and culture overall better for a more diverse workforce. This numbers-first approach is disgusting and a horrible excuse for diversity.
It curdles my lactose-intolerant stomach every time I see companies like Google getting applauded for ‘increasing their diversity numbers’ rather than doing much at all to change actual, underlying problems in their culture.
Tbh, your poorly worded, pseudo-scientific essay here is a great example of that. If Google did better to truly fix their monoculture, than you wouldnt have people like you using biased and incorrect science to form counterarguments such as this. You’d instead be using valid science to wonder why google is only interested numbers-based diversity and not workplace culture or personality-driven job matches or even balancing for socio-economic factors.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
Sorry to say… but Google has very little transparency into anything. Ever been on YouTube? Ever wondered wtf is going on with Search? What about word on their intent with most of the Alphabet projects?
Maybe there is more transparency of all of that internally, but my point is that Google simply doesnt have a track record for being transparent.
Nonetheless, there indeed needs to be more transparency. Diversity is such an obviously beneficial concept that lambasting it in an ideological echo chamber is indeed doing it a Great disservice.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Certainly. I agree this is a problem. Again, one almost solely due to numbers-first diversity.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
This is one of the most (only) poignant and 100% true takeaways from this essay. Psychological safety is what creating a healthy culture is all about.
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
And this is one of the many examples of faulty logic in this essay that clouds the valuable takeaways.
Those same studies you outlined did not prove that the rest of tech jobs beyond UX is likely to be of interest to less women. Once again, the fact that SWE, especially at most tech companies, requires more design, agreeableness, and other ‘women-qualities’ means that there should indeed be far more representation of women in tech. Tech isnt just (or even mostly) ‘thing’ related. It is a fair balance of both. Moreso than something like accounting or construction or even physics.
In fact, not defining tech is like keeping ‘science’ general… Therefore saying women simply have less interest in tech due to biological nature is very much the same as saying women are less interested in science due to their biology.
This is because both ‘tech’ and ‘science’ are often stereotyped or historically generalized as a ‘guy’ thing (because there’s a lot of ‘things’ and ‘systemizing’)… You see the problem here right?
De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeling another’s pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
I disagree on this… not (merely) because we arent Vulcans and can almost never truly be ‘emotionally unengaged’, but also because its incredibly difficult to be truly logical. Humans routinely fall prey to at least a hundred logical fallacies at any time… Thinking one is logical simply because you’re unemotional is a big one. Thinking one is right just because one is ‘logical’ is also another big problem.
We fear computers ‘taking over’ because of this intuition that being logical is not necessarily the best thing.
Furthermore, the ‘facts’ are often only true in passing. Science itself is a constant effort to reach a better understanding and find the truer truth.
I applaud you on making an attempt to look beyond the current ‘truths’ and to question assumptions… but I am very much disappointed in how (hypocritically) authoritative you stated much of your opinions and how much of them are based on very well debunked myths.
The problem of sexism (and racism) is not a simple matter of logical calculations. I mean, ideally its simple: just let people do wtf they wanna do without restricting someone elses freedom. No one is superior or inferior to another. Everyone can provide value if you get out of their way and let them.
Unfortunately… history has fucked that up. Now we’re stuck with not just stereotypes and prejudices, but whole institutional maxims built upon these inherently illogical, ego-driven, oppressive systems.
Its gotten so bad, that much of these systems are then backed by ‘logic’ such as women are weaker/incapable ‘on average’ and that black people are stupid/violent and that immigrants are bad…
How does one use real logic against those who charade their emotions/ego/status quo as logic??
The current attempts on the ‘left’ to further social progress has met a dead end when trying to use pure logic. Things havent changed fast enough or in the direction desired, and I cant blame people for trying to ‘force’ social change when they’re fighting a group of people who see just about all social change as against the status quo and thus bad. Therefore, enacting change requires an emotional piece to empathise with the cause and thus realize why and how illogical the prior ‘logic’ was.
The problem therefore, is not simply being ‘emotionally unengaged,’ but being *aware* of ones biases. Being aware of your own emotions, logic, and assumptions/intuitions is far more powerful and useful than persisting on any one by itself. Its not about ‘de-emphasizing empathy’ its about ‘emphasizing awareness.’ Not just awareness of emotional biases, but also of logical and assumptive ones. Yes, we should not be over-sensitizing people to unconscious sexism/racism, as that creates more sexism/racism… But we need empathy to help people become more aware of their biases. If you think they’re doing this too much, first really ask yourself (then ask the ‘victims’ in question) what biases you have in your emotions, logic, and assumptions.
Good reading: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-flaws-of-logical-thinking
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
I agree… Intent is often more important than unintentional transgressions. Perhaps that is my bias as a black dude living in the South… where its often clear what someone’s intent is… but I personally think people who are intentionally racist/sexist are far more troublesome than people who are simply ignorant.
We can do a lot to rid the world of (or at least deeply lessen) intentionally terrible people. But (unintentional) ignorance is inevitable and likely eternal. We simply cant know that which we dont know we dont know/can be known.
However, I must point out how incredibly annoying and frustrating it is to be around people who time and again make (unintentionally) ignorant racial/sexual slurs. These things do add up to create a culture of intolerance or just indirect hostility towards people different than ones self. This is hard to show without the use of empathy… but even logically speaking, its like a Vulcan constantly spouting inaccuracies as if they were facts.
You wont catch Vulcans spouting ‘alternative facts’, nor would it make sense for Vulcans to even accept the high level of inaccuracies-pretending-to-be-facts as are microaggressive comments or actions born from ‘facts’ (based on faulty or misleading logic).
If we’re going to build a culture where everyone is free to share their thoughts, than we must also either expect dumb/mean/illogical opinions to be met with judgement, or at least to expect constant corrections/critiques if one is constantly incorrect. In such a culture, it lies on the one party to not be too judgemental or dismissive, and it lies on the other to be receptive to feedback and not complain or lash out when proven wrong.
I also have to make clear that though this sounds good and ‘logical’ on paper… its far more complex IRL, because we simply dont have an infallible ability to discern fact from fiction.
Again, this is a great opportunity for Google (or some other AI company) to create a tool (real-time AR NLP?) that can not only distinguish the truth, but can also measure the degree of truth, the propensity/percentage of bias, and the sources/evidence backing that truth.
Be open about the science of human nature.
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.
Most definitely. But PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and egalitarian in the universe…. do NOT prescribe any ‘moralistic’ or value-based presumptions upon those differences.
Dont assume that biological differences are cause for any sort of superiority/inferiority complex. Directly or indirectly.
This is where the meat of problems lie.
You can use logic to ‘prove’ that women simply arent as interested in computer science as men… but when you fail to accomodate or contemplate the emotional ramifications, than you’ve failed to use actual logic. The reason logic and facts can themselves be dangerous is that there are always more facts, but as things get more complex, our human brains quickly ignore those additional facts. This creates a ‘false positive’… a limited logic… a use of logic as a means to an end to justify (immoral) beliefs.
People are largely inherently incapable at being completely logical anyways… our brains simply cant contemplate ALL the facts of a problem. So any problem that is too complex is therefore out of the purview of pure logic. At least as we’ve seen thus far with humans.
This is a biological limitation/difference all humans must realize before we can presume to say which biological differences matter.
Until we can somehow consider all the facts of a given ‘logic tree’ in terms of something like biological differences… then we must use empathy and emotion to respect everyones differences, and use self-awareness and metacognition to also resist from implicating judgements (value-based, moralistic, or otherwise) upon those differences.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
I very much agree. If Google is not going to actually measure the effectiveness of the training, than they will never be able to tell if it is a success or a failure. Thats simple logic. Thats fundamental. Thats exactly why I believe Google, as a corporation, doesnt give a sht about diversity… but are simply milking the good press of being numerically diverse.
But I suppose that last part is another blog in and of itself haha.
Unconscious bias is indeed important, but not the most important, and lecturing or beating people over the head with it is not the most effective way to show or rid people of their unconscious bias.
I hear meditation works wonders though…
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
Idk what this training is, so cant say much. But if Google cant even do its homework enough to show people as wannabe-intellectual as you that this is the right way of doing things… than clearly something is not working.
[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
I must find you and find those citations then…
But WOW…. so you’re a ‘classical liberal’… not all the ‘old-guard conservative’ the media was spouting you as… tragic.
But, after reading this whole thing (now multiple times), I strongly suggest you seriously reevaluate your biases… you have a startlingly high amount that is made very clear in these arguments masqueraded as fact.
[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
Ah… great for that clarification… That makes all my earlier points about software engineering doubly poignant. You’re now most definitely wrong in a lot of your assumptions.
I’ll link it here once again, but this definition of software engineering goes almost hand-in-hand with those ‘biological differences’ you are sure women have that make them not as interested in ‘thing-related’ jobs such as computer science.
Also, check this out for a very apt example of why women might should have a higher interest in non UX-related tech/software engineering.
[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
I am tempted to agree, especially on men for status/wealth… but I also am unsure if women are more strongly judged by ‘beauty’ or nurturing … and what that means… As emotional/home-based duties are not exactly stress free or low risk compared to high-status jobs…
[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
Again, I am torn between whether or not these exclusive programs are needed/best to counteract the active or indirect sabotage of people of a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
Companies would indeed be better served (and more authentic) by simply creating better environments, rather than surface-only ‘representation.’ (Which oftentimes seems closer to tokenism than actual diversity)
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
Eh…. the real problem was not that the working class didnt want to overthrow its oppressors, its that the working class was only used as a means to an end for dictators such as Stalin to become the new leader (oppressor).
‘White, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy’ has historically been proven to be the oppressor… I think the argument you (should be) trying to make is that the ‘leftist social justice warriors’ are becoming the oppressors.
And THAT is a serious problem. Good ideas die horrible deaths when the oppressed simply seek to become the oppressors.
The true threat in leftist-authoritiarianism (or authoritarianism of almost any kind) is not that people are too sensitive… its that people get punished for not being sensitive/progressive enough.
If you had just talked about that we’d have an actual argument on our hands, and a great example of intellectual diversity. But unfortunately, you dont.
[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
Ironically, IQ tests were (proven to be) culturally biased and used to ‘prove’ that blacks and hispanics were biologically dumb (or ‘less intellectually capable, on average, than whites’)…
[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
For a variety of ‘excuses’ you mean… What about these examples of women getting paid less for the exact same job?
Considering women spend more than men, does that mean women are more valuable to the economy?
Please consider your bias on how much women sacrifice in roles that are typically a majority of women (eg more hours, stress, and impact). We do indeed really need to rethink our stereotypes of power.
[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
This is most definitely a huge problem. I wish you would have focused more on this. Always best to simply bring attention to something unequivocally true rather than try to deconstruct something else with shaky facts that are oftentimes false, or only situationally true.
[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
Sounds like being a decent human being to me. Again, the problem doesnt lie in the idea of being PC itself.. it lies in *excessiveness*… in *oversensitivity* and in *authoritarian* reinforcements.
Any decent classic liberal or ‘god-fearing’ conservative knows its wrong to call a working class citizen stupid or lazy for not being rich. They know we shouldnt go about lording wealth over the less fortunate. Thats being PC; being empathetic, a good human being.
The problem is when *government* or some other authority figure tries to *punish* someone for not being PC or require such a thing as if its something authoritatively enforceable. I think the general public can punish well enough through public shaming and other means (although the crowd can often cross the line into violence, if not careful).
Point is, being politically correct is a phenomenon of human nature, and can be abused by any authoritarians… its not a matter of ‘left’ and ‘right’.
I suppose my main problem with you is your failure to put forth many actually intellectual arguments, and that you over-emphasize political identity, and thus under-estimate the diversity of political ideology. You also irresponsibly (or perhaps just ignorantly) ignore the ramifications of what you’re saying and thus learn to say it better or more accurately. The manner in which you speak of women’s differences imply (or lead others to infer) very illogical and immoral things… Not because people are sensitive, or because you’re being contrarian… but simply due to your own failure to use unbiased logic, as well as an inability to communicate your arguments with the barest empathy required to get to the core of the problem.
I find it very tragic and not at all useful that the media deemed you a ‘racist, sexist, conservative’ or that they kept calling your 10 page opinion piece as an ‘anti-diversity’ ‘manifesto’ or ‘screed’… both do a disservice to this opportunity for conversation. The first makes it seem like you’re on a quest to end diversity, and ‘screed’ makes it seem like this was a boring harangue (or that they were trying to convey this as a ‘screeching’ ‘creed’ which is what I originally assumed before looking up what screed meant hahaha).
I actually enjoyed reading this… had me laughing and surprised at how confident some people are in their ignorance. I also felt it was a relatively quick read, I practically flew through it with how well you structured and paced everything, thats still a skill I am learning.
Apologies for my own attitude… I’m sure you were very much serious and thought you were being very intellectual in writing this. Its just that I was raised in a culture where most people were either ruled by the ignorance of religion and tradition, or they (youth usually) didnt speak up unless they were 120% sure they were right, and even then they were never so confident/authoritative in proposing contrarian views. My personal bias is thus to offer contrarian views in the voice of a conscientious skeptic. Speaking in probabilities and careful suggestions based on ample evidence, all wrapped in an ‘on their level, in their world’ method of communication to ensure I did all I could to get my point across.
The fact that you seem to care very little about how your points will be received gave me quite a bit of mirth in its shocking bravado.
Even my current tone of voice is due to knowing you probably wont care how delicately I put my objections. You seem to want to be ‘manhandled’ regardless of if thats the most efficient or logical manner of communication.
You also seem to have an over-simplified concept of political positions.
You, as a ‘classic liberal’ should know that ‘left and right’ are not so simple.
Classic liberals are only considered ‘Rightist’ in very small (albeit usually more intellectual) circles. But, too many Rightists fall into shades of Neo-Conservatism (Religious), Reactionary RetroProgressives (Alt-Right), and Establishment types (Status quo). Each of these ‘Rightists’ tend to be hostile or uncaring about the rights/freedoms of those who do not follow the same beliefs. This tradition of intolerance has therefore created a ‘clapback’ among Leftists recently.
Classic liberals are historically Leftists… but because much of the US is Rightist in that they believe either Government or Corporations (rather than the People) should hold the authority, and that human rights/freedoms are either declared by religion or science, rather than self-evident; left and right distinctions are thus more on the issue of who holds the authority to protect which rights: Private citizens and militaristic governments instilling religious/traditionalist rights on the Right, or Socialistic governments instilling social-good rights on the Left. There is no true delineation between who stands for the working class (typically Leftist) and who stands for the wealthy/establishment (typically Rightist). Even the ‘free market’ capitalists can no longer fall squarely on the right, since many Rightists would tamper with the market to achieve a monopoly or otherwise finagle profits.
Maybe Constitutional Republicans are the closest types to the ‘spirit’ of the Right… mostly divorced from religion, capitalism, and science… being simply adherents of the Constitution… but they can easily be distinguished as ‘historical Leftists’ if you point out that the constitution is supposed to empower and default the government to the People.
Whatever you believe in or call yourself… Politics is far more complex and flexible than pure logic can handle alone. Thus why it has often been equally parts theater/spectatorship as it was communication. I think Politics should not be coupled with Identity… that is what led to this mess, and all but destroys any remaining room for logic. Identity politics blinds people with personal bias and makes it hard to fix past wrongs to grant previously disenfranchised peoples their self-evident rights and freedoms.
At the end of the day, women can do whatever they want to do. As well as men. The job of authority should not be to prioritize or enforce one over the other, but to ensure both can enjoy freedom without limiting the freedom of the other or harming their person.
Super DUPER Thanks for reading! I know it was A LOT.
