[manigandham]

As long as an individual person is the sum of both nature and nurture, then regardless of the exact ratio of influence, nature will continue to make a difference.

> Damore argued that nature is the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women in tech.

No, he argued that nature in part, may explain the gender mismatch. That really cant be denied. It was also specifically talking about interests rather than capabilities of working in tech. Saying you might not be interested in programming software does not mean you're not able to.

The memo also never said we should stop nurturing women but that we should use different tactics that are more of match to their common on average biological traits and avoid any other discrimination based on race/gender, instead treating everyone as individuals.

[ltrcola]

Actually, if you read it closely, this is not true. True, he does suggest a lot of potential actions that could create a more beneficial tech culture for women, but then he goes on to suggest that Google needs to determine if these types of changes would impact Google's productivity in a negative way.

This is a pretty heavy implication that these programs do not in fact have any value and that diversity is not valuable. I can agree that a perfect 50/50 split is unattainable and the wrong goal, but there are studies that show diversity confers an advantage. And as Yonatan points out, I think the author has a misunderstanding of what is valuable from an engineering culture perspective.

[manigandham]

I didn't see that clause about productivity, can you quote that piece of the memo? https://diversitymemo.com/

Yonatan's response was an emotional tirade, refusing to debate any of the cited research and using a different context of empathy. Nobody is debating the value of empathy in engineering (and it's good to have for any job and life in general, nothing specific to tech), but empathy in setting policy is completely different.

Rules should be set based on rational analysis instead of feelings. We argue for science/math-based policies in government so asking for the same in such a large corporation with regards to such a sensitive subject seems perfectly logical.

[ltrcola]

Here is the section from the memo that I'm referencing:

> Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. 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. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

In general I agree that a rational analysis and science based approach is valuable. In fact, I think research into diversity actually does support the idea that it provides benefits. But it's not simply as black and white as science good, empathy/moralizing bad.

For instance, it may be objectively better for a company to do a lot of things that we consider immoral or harmful to society. For instance, how much does maternity and paternity leave cost a company in productivity, time, and the expense of providing a replacement worker? In fact, it might just be more profitable not to hire women of childbearing age at all, which actually was socially accepted for a long time. But these days our society has come to the general conclusion that this is actually morally unacceptable, and the benefits to parents and society outweigh the costs to the company. A very similar argument could be employed regarding the hiring of employees in the reserves or national guard.

I think you have to look at things holistically, as an entire system, and yes, morally.