[dropstickle]

As far as I have understood, his main problem with Google is exactly as you describe him. He feels like Google is actively furthering a political agenda, namely the left one, and does not allow any dissidents or diversity of viewpoints. He explictly states that he is not against diversity, and that he is open to criticism and debate of the arguments he presented.

As for the cherry picking; remember that he is trying to make a point here, namely that biological differences might play a role over aggregated statistical differences, and that this might be one of the reasons we don't see the 50/50 split, and that ignoring this might be counter productive for everyone. Is the biological studies he have presented cherry picked? I'm sure you have seen the Quillette article [1], and the scientists quoted there does not seem to think so.

[1] http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-....

[kenjackson]

In many regards he is correct about the left vs right, but I think he misses the broader historical context. Allowing blacks to attend the same schools as whites is also a left v right argument. As is adults dating children. We, as a society, have come up on different sides of the ideological spectrum for each.

And while biology may account for some of the gap, it almost seems obvious that it doesn't account for all of it. And this is just looking at gains women have made economically in the past 30 years.

I don't think most reasonable people at google think there are no bio diffs, but rather that we are still far enough from the point where we have exhausted other causes. Simply pointing out thst bio diffs exist, while effectively trying to use that to shut down other approaches of giving equal opportunity is purely a political and not science based position. Unless he has some much stronger science results he has not yet shared.