[nyxtom]

While some of the points are worth exploring, and have actually with Google's own research (aka psychology safety and Google's project Aristotle on what makes a great team), much of this essay becomes immediately discredited by creating suspect on the premise of questioning employment opportunities for women.

I thought about this a bit but let's say it was indeed a factor of employment and advancements over some men in roles.

There is signifant research on the benefits of a diverse culture.

Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.

I would argue that it isn't a problem that diverse members are indeed advanced because of ONE of the factors being their contribution to a diverse group. That doesn't negate the necessity that they must also be good at their job.

Furthermore, great engineers are people oriented. Anyone can learn how to write code, but it takes skill to hone in on necessary insights that deal with people, interaction, and the nature of finding solutions that I suspect are meant to help people.

[marcell]

> Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.

Can you point to the two or three best studies showing this? It seems really hard to study objectively--how do you measure innovativeness? how do you control for all sorts of potentially confounding variable?