The “Google Diversity Manifesto” has sparked a lot of debate, fueled in part by Gizmodo’s decision (at least according to what I’ve heard) to remove links to the scientific evidence backing up its core arguments. Being somewhat familiar with that research, I didn’t find the piece particularly noteworthy. However, it’s clear that many others felt differently, as evidenced by reactions like this:
Write a doc about how inferior women are, then try to be a hero by offering help to save the *vulnerable* 🤢🤢🤢 Still shaking in anger.
— Jaana B. Dogan 👀 (@rakyll) August 4, 2017
While complete agreement isn’t necessary, a shared understanding would be beneficial. I personally didn’t interpret anything in the text as suggesting women are “inferior.” However, it’s possible I overlooked something, or that some ideas, when taken out of context, might give that impression.
Ideally, we’d have access to the original document with its citations and figures. In the meantime, I’m providing references to the relevant scientific research.
UPDATE: The original document has been made public.
Biases
The text begins by outlining common biases found in both left-leaning and right-leaning political viewpoints. This seems to be directly drawn from the work of Jonathan Haidt.
Related article in the New York Times: Forget the money follow the sacredness
Potential Non-Bias Factors Contributing to the “Gender Gap”
After acknowledging the impact of bias, the author explores potential non-bias causes for the gender gap in tech, some possibly rooted in biology. A key focus here is the gender differences observed in the Big Five personality traits.
The empirical foundation of the Big Five personality traits and associated findings are largely undisputed. Criticism, as outlined on the Wikipedia page, primarily centers around the model’s limitations rather than its validity. It’s important to note that terms like “neuroticism” in this context differ from their everyday usage. A higher “neuroticism” score doesn’t necessarily indicate poorer mental health. Using these terms without proper context seems to have fueled a significant portion of the anger directed at the document and its author.
Jordan Peterson offers a video on this same topic. Additionally, several studies suggest cross-cultural (hinting at biological factors) and directly biologically influenced gender differences in these personality traits:
- Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five
- “Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies” – Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?
- Confirmation a few years later: “Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637).” – Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures.
- “…the emergence of sex differences was similar across culture.” The Emergence of Sex Differences in Personality Traits in Early Adolescence: A Cross-Sectional, Cross-Cultural Study
- Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People
These studies highlight statistical gender differences, not individual characteristics, similar to physical differences. For example, while men are statistically taller than women, many women are taller than many men. The same applies to psychological traits, where there’s significant overlap and no inherent “better” or “worse” value attached to any trait.
Interestingly, one reason fewer women choose tech might be that women with strong math skills often possess equally strong verbal skills. In contrast, men with strong math skills might not have the same level of verbal aptitude. This gives women more career options, and people of any gender with more options tend to shy away from tech: Why Brilliant Girls Tend to Favor Non-STEM Careers
The notion that there are no biological reasons for cognitive differences is essentially The Blank Slate hypothesis, which Steven Pinker debunked in his book of the same name: The Blank Slate. Intriguingly, Pinker highlights the same type of backlash we’re seeing now, demonstrating that this isn’t a new phenomenon.
Further reinforcing this point, the Pinker/Spelke debate examined “…on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes.”
This report delves into many points alluded to in the “manifesto,” with Pinker presenting extensive evidence for gender-specific traits and preferences that could explain observed gaps. He also argues compellingly that the opposing view leads to inaccurate predictions.
There’s a wealth of information available on this topic. One of my favorite accessible (and humorous) introductions is the Norwegian Documentary The Gender Equality Paradox. The documentary investigates why professions in Norway, a country consistently ranked highly for gender equality, are actually more segregated by gender compared to less egalitarian countries.
Empathy
Paul Bloom’s recent book, Against Empathy, directly addresses the author’s points on empathy. (amazon, goodreads, New York Times)
Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make.
Bloom illustrates that empathy often makes us prioritize the suffering of an individual over the suffering of a larger group, leading to potentially irrational outcomes. His book is a thought-provoking read that challenges commonly held beliefs.
Microaggressions
Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence:
I argue that the microaggression research program (MRP) rests on five core premises, namely, that microaggressions (1) are operationalized with sufficient clarity and consensus to afford rigorous scientific investigation; (2) are interpreted negatively by most or all minority group members; (3) reflect implicitly prejudicial and implicitly aggressive motives; (4) can be validly assessed using only respondents’ subjective reports; and (5) exert an adverse impact on recipients’ mental health. A review of the literature reveals negligible support for all five suppositions.
The Science of Microaggressions: It’s Complicated:
Subtle bigotry can be harmful, but research on the concept so far raises more questions than answers. [..] Still, the microaggression concept is so nebulously defined that virtually any statement or action that might offend someone could fall within its capacious borders. [..] The science aside, it is crucial to ask whether conceptualizing the interpersonal world in terms of microaggressions does more good than harm. The answer is “We don’t know.” Still, there are reasons for concern. Encouraging individuals to be on the lookout for subtle, in some cases barely discernible, signs of prejudice in others puts just about everyone on the defensive. Minority individuals are likely to become chronically vigilant to minor indications of potential psychological harm whereas majority individuals are likely to feel a need to walk on eggshells, closely monitoring their every word and action to avoid offending others. As a consequence, microaggression training may merely ramp up already simmering racial tensions.
Conclusion
I hope this provides helpful context and accurately reflects the author’s intentions.