Some thoughts from Mr Memo
A male person at Google has had just about enough of their diversity policy, and wrote a ten page memo to explain about it. Surprise plot twist: it’s because women just aren’t as good.
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. “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.
The post comes as Google battles a wage discrimination investigation by the US Department of Labor, which has found that Google routinely pays women less than men in comparable roles.
Which, it turns out, is only reasonable, because women just are different, in the sense of worse.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias 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.
Fortunately, fortunately, he happens to have all the necessary facts and reason for the job. He knows everything, and explains it lucidly.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
- They’re universal across human cultures
- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
- The underlying traits are highly heritable
- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
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.
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
- 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.
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- 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.
- 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.
Fascinating. I feel more in possession of facts and reason already – though also, of course, more open toward feelings, more agreeable, more reluctant to speak up, and way way way more neurotic.
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.
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. 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.
I’ve noticed that. There’s nothing like being a coal miner or a garbage collector to satisfy the lust for status.
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. 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). 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.
What luck that Mr Memo is immune to any kind of bias.
The bracketed numbers by the way lead to more of his thoughts on the subject, not to sources. There ain’t no sources. Real men are Leaders, and they don’t need no stinkin’ sources.
Yeah, another just-so story by another man to make him feel better.
Would love to see his explanation on why there are few non-Asian minorities in IT.
Maybe we could prod him a bit and he’d explain it to us in equally well researched terms.
One thing I noticed when I was working with engineers – there were a lot of men! There were some women – they were all Asian, and they were fabulous engineers, great at math, great at reasoning, and – subject to the prejudice that because they were Asian (I use this broad category because they were not all from the same part of Asia) they were fabulous engineers, great at math, great at reasoning. So, yeah, universal, right. Except when it isn’t.
And I imagine it is that pesky sex difference that explains why, in my photography class, I insisted on putting people in all my pictures, arguing that a picture wasn’t worth taking without people in it, while my male instructor kept working so hard to take pictures of the things in spite of the fact that the damn people would insist on walking through your picture just as you shot! Because as a male, he is interested in things, while, as a female, I am naturally interested in people. Except – reverse that. He felt there needed to be people in pictures; I got tired of the people walking through my pictures of interesting things.
These people (memo man, not my photography instructor) make me tired.
I bet you were nodding along as you read, right? There’s that agreeableness he mentioned!
Yeah, you don’t do biology (or thinking) so good, do you?
You’d think the sociability would give women a big leg up in salary negotiations, and in management, when all the work is with the people rather than with the things.
And, I hear evo-psych just so stories from supposed feminists that match this exactly.
An excellent response from someone who worked at Google until very recently (but no longer):
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
That brings us, however, to point (3), the most serious point of all. I’m going to be even blunter than usual here, because I’m not subject to the usual maze of HR laws right now, and so I can say openly what I would normally only be allowed to say in very restricted fora. And this is addressed specifically to the author of this manifesto.
What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas. And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?”
I need to be very clear here: not only was nearly everything you said in that document wrong, the fact that you did that has caused significant harm to people across this company, and to the company’s entire ability to function. And being aware of that kind of consequence is also part of your job, as in fact it would be at pretty much any other job. I am no longer even at the company and I’ve had to spend half of the past day talking to people and cleaning up the mess you’ve made. I can’t even imagine how much time and emotional energy has been sunk into this, not to mention reputational harm more broadly.
And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment. . . . .
I’m writing this here, in this message, because I’m no longer at the company and can say this sort of thing openly. But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. And the fact that you think this was “all in the name of open discussion,” and don’t realize any of these deeper consequences, makes this worse, not better.
And of course, our techbro once again fails to recall that the original coders were mostly women, because it was low-status, low-paying grunt-work. It was only once computing became so important to society (with compensation to match) that it became a ‘man’s job’.
Dudebro needs to go back to religion; at least then, his inane form of the “just world” hypothesis would be attributed to faith rather than evo-psych.
The sad legacy of googlebro here is that this IT female is now reluctant to discuss how to improve ‘the people issues’.
In IT, “the people” are often the hardest part of the job.
I’m guessing a lot of other female IT folk are feeling the same.