[lucozade]

The problem isn't with the science, it's with the misuse of the science to add apparent credence to flawed logic.

So yes, across humanity there are statistical gender differences to the choices people make. The flaw in the logic is that that doesn't means Google shouldn't act on bias in its selection and retention policies. What it may well mean is that Google may need to mitigate the cultural biases both internally and externally if they are going to make more than a small dent in the imbalance.

Similarly, it doesn't follow from the argument that humanity is what it is to a position that Google shouldn't attempt gender equality. It does mean that it'll be tricky for a company their size. But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.

BTW there is often the assumption that something like gender equality is purely a political goal. And quite often it is. However, there is a very good argument that the tech pool for high potential people is quite shallow given the current and expected demand.

In my org we are taking steps to try to widen the pool of intellectually able people we can select from. One area that we are targeting is women. Another is geographical areas where we don't have traction (mainly eastern Europe and Africa). This isn't political per se. This is so we have a wider talent pool to choose from. I would be genuinely stunned if this type of thinking wasn't in part what Google senior management are also looking at.

[yorwba]

> But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.

That reminds me of something I read recently:

For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that.

Can you guess where I read that? (Hint: It was written by James Damore).

Now it just so happens that I disagree with that opinion, because it appears to remove the corporation's decision making from any moral considerations, leaving only profit. But it appears to be a point where you agree with the memo author.

[lucozade]

I don't have to guess, I read it. Also, I don't agree with him. His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is. I find his approach to reaching that conclusion somewhat disingenuous.

And I don't get your point on profit. He didn't mention it nor do I think that's the part of the culture he wants to retain particularly. I didn't mention it either. I want my company to succeed, I am a shareholder after all. But I also want it to be a good place to work as I spend a reasonable chunk of my week there.

I also happen to be a father of a daughter who wants her to have every possible opportunity open to her. Assuming this is one dimensional doesn't really fit the facts.

[yellowapple]

"His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is."

I had the opposite impression when I read it: there should be major change at Google (away from "echo chambers") and he absolutely does not like it the way it is.