Image source: Turquoise Tiger
I’ve been ignoring the controversy over (now former) Google engineer James Damore’s memo in the workplace, mostly due to time considerations, although I did notice the NPR morning report covering it seemed a trifle confused. Apparently this has become something into which a lot of things can be read. Andrew Sullivan did a close reading (see the second and third sections of the post at the link) of the memo and came out of it outraged – at everyone on the left:
He used no slurs; he backed up his arguments with evidence; his tone is measured, even scholarly; in subsequent media appearances, he comes off as an affable fellow, far from angry or bitter, just refusing to buckle to ideas he believes are worth questioning. More to the point, he is not wrong. You’ll notice that almost none of the media criticisms of the manifesto present data that contradicts Damore, which is the obvious way to debunk someone. They don’t do this because the overwhelming data on gender difference supports Damore’s careful argument. In many rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, scholars — many of them women — have presented evidence that the genders do indeed differ on major personality traits, that men in general tend to prefer dealing with things and women in general prefer dealing with people, and that these differing traits may well lead to different distributions of men and women in certain professions. This does not mean that sexism isn’t also a big factor in these differentials. It posits merely that sexism is not the only factor. …
The New York Times described the memo in a news article as “positing that biological differences explained the tech industry’s gender gap.” Explained? That’s a caricature. How about “play a role in” the gender gap? Here’s Owen Jones in The Guardian: “Damore’s assertions about gender are, frankly, guff dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon.” What is “pseudo-scientific” about the peer-reviewed studies I’ve cited? Jones doesn’t explain. Google’s diversity chief responded to the memo by telling Google employees that the memo advanced “incorrect assumptions” about gender, but never explained what in the memo was “incorrect.” She also refused even to link to the memo — because it propagated ideas that violated Google’s corporate policies. Whatever else this is, it isn’t rational. There is no ethical or empirical difference, it seems to me, between Jones’s or Google’s statements about gender and any statement that simply asserts that all climate science is a hoax. None. And yet the left forgives itself for the exact same know-nothingism it rightly excoriates on the right.
The mark of a serious person is an adherence to the facts of a matter, and that appears to be Andrew’s fetish. It’s evident here in two way, the first being the obvious citation of facts, but the second is his ripostes to those responses he feel are unworthy of the subject – by pointing out their lack of factual support. It’s one reason I like Andrew a lot, whether or not I like his positions.
Lefty Kevin Drum takes a different approach:
I finally got around to reading the memo this afternoon. What surprised me wasn’t that Damore wrote what he did. I imagine there are plenty of Silicon Valley engineer-bros who are tired of all the SJW diversity lectures and have managed to convince themselves that it’s nonsense on the basis of what they think is rigorously impartial scientific analysis. Throw in a bit of conservative victimology and you have a pretty good taste of Damore’s memo. You can read the whole thing here if you want.
Like I said, that much didn’t surprise me. But there was something that struck me as a bit off-kilter about Damore’s memo. Maybe I’m over-reading things, but it seemed like Damore very calculatedly went further over the line than he needed to. …
So why did he write what he did? Maybe I’m overestimating Damore’s sophistication, but something about his writing style made me think he had deliberately chosen not to take this tack. There was something about the amateurishness of his analysis that seemed strained, as if he was playing a role. And that role was simple: not to write about why he thought Google’s diversity programs were misguided, but to write something as offensive as possible in a way that allowed him plausible deniability. In other words, he was trying to get fired so he could portray himself as a lonely martyr to Silicon Valley’s intolerance for conservative views. Maybe he could even go to court, funded by some nice right-wing think tank.
It’s interesting to see the contrast between Andrew taking Damore’s research seriously, while Kevin thinks it’s amateurish. But on that subject, Debra Soh, a PhD in sexual neuroscience, writes in the Toronto Globe & Mail:
Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.
As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.
So Dr. Soh seems to be confirming Damore’s interpretations of the studies. Her conclusions?
This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.
Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them.
This is exactly what the mob of outrage should be mobilizing for, instead of denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job. At this point, as foreshadowed in Mr. Damore’s manifesto, we should be more concerned about viewpoint diversity than diversity revolving around gender.
Google’s been a target for the conservatives since it often follows its own path, such as exiting ALEC. So this is not a surprise from National Review’s Michael Barone:
Similarly, Google’s CEO said Tuesday: “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves.” “However” — key word — “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”
George Orwell would recognize this doublespeak: We totally support free speech except when we call it heresy. Tolerance requires repression.
Ironically, for a company that makes money by transmitting information, Google’s position is intellectually incoherent. What its CEO dismisses as “harmful gender stereotypes” are the conclusions, after years of painstaking research, of serious neuroscientists.
Michael Dougherty, also at National Review, communicates in conservaspeak, that special slang for those who will nod with you in unison.
Then a left-leaning person in Google leaked it to a left-leaning media outlet, knowing it would kick over the hornet’s nest of left-leaning social media, scaring lawyers inside Google, who would then advise executives that continuing to employ Damore risked Title VII litigation, which is shaped by left-leaning legal activists in such a way that employing anyone with known non-progressive views on politics or religion becomes a potential legal liability, since even having them around starts to create a hostile environment. Left-leaning activist employees then set the media up for the day-two story, going public to explain that they can’t work with someone who donated to the wrong political cause, or wrote the wrong thing on a message board; they feel unsafe. Or they call in sick. Left-leaning executives and managers start sharing that they are making internal blacklists. The Left has a word for this phenomenon where people pretend to be threatened and hurt so that they may lash out and threaten others. They call it gaslighting.
He might even be right, but the conversational manner is not meant to convince the skeptic, but to invoke a riot in the converted. Nice work, if you can get paid for it – a lot easier than writing pieces that actually convince and change the world. Not that I’m bitter, to quote a friend about an ex-husband …
I’ve glanced the memo over, but the unavoidable tilt towards unknown Google cultural biases and concerns make interpretation a bit too chancy for my tastes. So I’ll just leave my reader with the observations of the above folks, some with more credentials than mine, and I’ll just note that sometimes the left can get a little shrill and defensive of their positions.
And sometimes people read what they want into a controversy. It’s weird, but I suppose for the ideologically driven it’s understandable.
