Breaking down the so-called "Google Manifesto"

Hi all, I thought i'd comment on this recent controversy by breaking down the actual document and responding to it.

If you haven't read the original document, it's available here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

First i'd like to remark on a factor i've noticed in public discussions: pattern completion. Human brains are great pattern matchers, they'll identify part of a pattern and then fill in the gaps with existing knowledge - this is why bias and prejudice exists.

Ironically, the same mechanism is behind people thinking the document calls for discrimination despite it saying the opposite. Sexists would point to the same physical neurological differences between men and women that this document does and cite them as justification for discrimination, so when we see the document pointing them out a lot of people complete the pattern with "the author is advocating discrimination".

Overall the document proposes 3 concepts:

1. Google has a corporate culture akin to an echo chamber, and that may be harmful
2. Even if we eliminate prejudice and sexism, biological factors will mean we will not see a 50/50 split between men and women in tech
3. Using affirmative action to try and force a 50/50 split is in itself discriminatory and harmful

I can't comment on the first point since I am not a google employee, nor have I ever been one, but the second point seems quite rational, and the third point seems to follow from it.

Notably, this is NOT as the media have called it an "anti-diversity manifesto" - the author calls for people to be judged as individuals.

So let's dive into the actual document:

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem

Here the author states that he does not deny sexism exists and i'd agree - the document does not state that sexism does not exist, rather it states that sexism alone is insufficient to explain why tech is not a 50/50 split between men and women. He then goes on to say that we can't solve the problem of lack of representation without discussing possible reasons why the balance is not 50/50.

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.

Shaming people for stating opinions considered politically incorrect is always going to be a problem. It is much more productive to listen to the opposing viewpoint and then refute it. Shaming also causes other problems: it causes people to be afraid to express their viewpoint for fear others will react harshly.

This is exactly what happened to the author James Damore - Google responded to his views by firing him for saying things considered offensive.

My own view here is that he should not have put his name to the document, and he should not have published it as a work memo - in the current political landscape that is a very bad idea. It is not however, as some have suggested, a free speech issue - we can after all read his words.

Some have suggested that Google had a legal obligation to fire him as female employees could cite the memo as creating a hostile work environment and this is indeed true, regardless of whether or not the stated views are correct.

Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

This is something else I agree on: shaming people does not work.

On page 2 of the PDF is a "tl;dr" list of bulletpoints, I will address them one by one.

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety

This is a reiteration of what is stated above: shaming people is a bad idea. Being shamed into silence for views others find offensive will cause people not to express their views if there is a chance others will be offended - the very definition of an echo chamber.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

I said above I can't comment on the internal culture of Google as I have no experience working there, but if shaming into silence is a common practice then this is a completely valid point.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology
○ Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
○ Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

This is where I believe there is content that reasonable people can object to. It is not controversial to state that our society suffers problems with prejudice/oppression and this causes disparities in representation of minority groups, but there IS controversy over the best way to address the problem - some believe that affirmative action should be used, a sort of "positive" discrimination or bias in favour of minority groups to try to account for the bias of society.

Others believe the best way to handle past injustices against minority groups is to eliminate all discrimination, no matter how well intended, and to focus on individuals rather than groups.

James states that lack of discussion leads to an extreme authoritarian viewpoint becoming standard ideology and describes the view that all disparities are due to oppression as extreme.

So let's ask: is ALL disparity in representation due to oppression of minority groups? This is a valid question to ask, and when it comes to gender disparity in technical fields there is a valid argument that neurological differences may account for some of the disparity, meaning even if we eliminate sexism, disparity will remain.

Whether it is ethical or not to use affirmative action to address the disparity caused by biological factors rather than sexism is the question to ask now. In many jurisdictions affirmative action is a legal issue too: in some areas the practice is just as illegal as other forms of discrimination, and in others it's exempt from the laws against discrimination.

My personal view is that any company should only ever discriminate against one group when hiring: those unable to perform the job. Affirmative action may be well-intended, but it violates the rule that we should only discriminate against those unable to perform.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

This point is the one that is commonly twisted in public commentary into "women are unsuited for tech and leadership jobs", with people pointing out the many many examples of talented women proving otherwise. Doing this is a classic case of the strawman fallacy.

What the author actually appears to be arguing is not that all women are unsuited to these positions, but rather that on average they are less interested and thus the number of women who enter the field will be lower than the number of men who enter the field - this will inevitably lead to gender disparity, but it is not unethical to simply let it be.

An example of another profession that has a known gender disparity is nursing: nursing is a stereotypically feminine profession that has a bias towards women. A US government census showed the percentage of male nurses was 8.1% - a very extreme disparity. This disparity, like the disparity seen in tech undoubtedly has social causes - nursing is seen as feminine and unmanly etc - but even if we were to eliminate the social factors it's likely that we'd see some gender disparity in favour of women.

It is not sexist to ask whether women are more interested in nursing due to neurological differences: females in all species (including our own) tend to be more protective and nurturing, and males more aggressive - and nursing is all about caring for the sick.

When we look at the related profession - that of the MD - we see some gender disparity in bias towards men, but it is far less severe (65.92% male according to current data from kff.org), it is reasonable to suggest that social factors play a bigger role in this disparity, but it is far less severe.

Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business

This is undoubtedly about affirmative action, which the author states is unfair - a point that can be hotly debated on its own, but which reasonable people can disagree on. It is certainly true that the issue is divisive and controversial though and controversies of this nature are indeed often bad for any business.

A point raised by a friend of mine is that this point would be reason for firing the author from Google alone, as it implies that his female colleagues were hired based on their gender instead of their skills and qualifications and this could expose Google to a hostile workplace lawsuit, and this is likely quite true.

James Damore may file a lawsuit for wrongful termination, but such a lawsuit may be settled and is only a one-off. It also strikes me as unlikely to succeed in court as people can be fired for pretty much any reason unless the reason is related to a protected class (race/sexuality/gender/disability etc).

The potential for hostile working environment lawsuits though is much greater - potentially any female employee may sue, and this would be costly for Google. As a business, the only sensible choice was to fire the author, lest they be seen as supporting the suggested view that female employees are hired based on gender rather than skill.

Immediately after the list of summary bullet points, the document begins in earnest and I will address only portions of it below, I encourage everyone to read the whole document themselves however.

Under the heading "Google's biases", the author explains his view that Google has a bias towards the political left and lists a set of biases he believes are prevalent in both the political left and the political right.

One of the first biases he lists under left is "compassion for the weak", and this almost certainly causes offence, such phrasing being commonly associated with the horrors of social darwinism, national socialism and eugenics. It is clear also that with the gender theme of the whole document, some could infer from this that the author himself classifies women as "weak" - an obviously sexist view.

This is not the case however - I believe the author is summarising the extremist views of both ends of the political spectrum rather than agreeing with or condemning either in particular.

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases

This line is likely a reference to diversity training events, though I can not be certain on this. Such seminars do indeed often talk about unconscious bias as applied to race and gender, and this bias is indeed a problem. Unconscious bias is often used in arguments for affirmative action, and indeed affirmative action can help correct for it, but so too can blind hiring - the practice of not allowing the person who makes the hiring decision to know about the traits of race and gender which may cause prejudice.

"Moral biases" here are best understood as the author's terminology for political views and the biases that such views cause in people. It is likely true that Google leans more left politically, and so bias in this regard is something that is valid to explore.

After listing the biases, the author states the following:

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors

It is often true that the rational and sensible answer to a question is the one that compromises between extreme viewpoints and so the above is quite sensible also if, as claimed, Google leans too left politically.

Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies

Shaming people into silence is something I discussed above, and it is true that if people feel unable to express their views if they go against the popular mindset, it is easier for extremist views to become dominant. This is why the answer to offensive speech is more speech and refutation.

Not only do extremist views become more mainstream if they are left uncriticised, but those afraid to speak up may themselves begin developing more extreme views too.

For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation

It is indeed an extreme stance to argue that all differences in representation are due to prejudice, and as i've discussed above it is legit to criticise affirmative action policies when other ways to deal with historical injustice and unconscious bias (such as blind hiring) exist.

The heading below this is "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", and in this section the author starts discussing reasons for the gender disparity in technical fields that go beyond sexism.

Many interpret these points as saying women are biologically unsuited for technical fields, but the author states this:

Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

With this line, and in other places throughout the document, it seems clear the author is NOT advocating for discrimination against women and is instead advocating for treating people as individuals. However, it is true that his criticism of affirmative action does imply his female colleagues are "token" hires and this is both offensive and a legal liability.

Some have also pointed out that it is offensive to say women interested in technical fields are "genetic mutants", and while this may be offensive to some, it is worth remembering that we are ALL genetic mutants with our own unique traits that differ from whatever groups we belong to. Being different from those around you is not something to be ashamed of, and the author does not say that it is.

He then goes on to explain that differences between men and women exist in part due to biological differences and states the below, reaffirming again that this is not an argument for discrimination:

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

A large bulk of the document is then devoted to specific claims about biology, some of which are quite well supported by the scientific literature and some of which are less well supported.

Much of these differences relates to the Empathizing–systemizing theory, a theory that has been used by researchers like Prof Simon Baron-cohen to explain not just differences between the genders but also the gender disparity in rates of autism diagnosis.

There is a reason that Aspergers is sometimes called "Geek syndrome".

The E-S theory does seem to have some neurological evidence for it, the influence of testosterone on brain development in the womb is often cited as evidence.

Within this section the author takes care to cite explanations of the theory and a sociology study that found gender differences in behaviour remain consistent across cultures, implying that such differences are indeed biological - and this is one of the core points of the whole document.

Put simply, if differences between the genders are not purely social but biological, then eliminating sexism will not eliminate gender disparity in technical fields.

On the next page, the author states the following criticism of the social construction theory of gender differences:

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

The research he cites is a 2008 study across 55 countries that found gender differences cross-culturally. He then argues that as society gets less prejudiced, the biological differences between men and women become more apparent in opposition to the social factors that cause disparity.

"We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism" is a wonderful summary.

Below this he discusses the stereotypically male drive for status and states men are often judged more on social status than other factors - and evidence would seem to back this up.

He also argues that the factors that cause men to take high-stress high-status jobs also cause them to take high-stress low-status jobs, but this is a point I do not agree on. This said, the citation of higher risk jobs being more male occupied is supported by data - but, despite some reports in the media, he does not "blame women" for this at any point.

It is my belief that jobs involving physical labour (and thus danger) are more male occupied for a mix of reasons both biological and social. Testosterone means men on average have greater strength, and physical labour jobs are also seen socially as stereotypical "man's work" both historically and currently - occupations such as building, plumbing and other low-status physical labour jobs are traditionally very masculine in popular perception.

Next is the heading "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap", and the fact this section even exists is proof that the author is not advocating discrimination. It may be that his suggestions are bad ideas, but the intent of wanting to keep women out of technical fields is nowhere to be seen.

The actual methods he lists include ways to make software engineering more people-orientated as on average women are more people-orientated. Pair programming (the practice of having one person at the keyboard coding while another person sits next to them and discusses the design of the software) is suggested as one example. Whether or not this idea makes sense, and whether or not the data actually finds women to be more people-orientated on average, it is clear the author is not advocating that we discriminate in any way against women.

Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

If making programming more people-oriented is a way to increase the representation of women in software engineering (and this is a claim that is up to science and empirical data to answer), then this statement makes perfect sense. Not all roles at a software company (or any other company) can be made people-orientated, some by their nature are focused almost entirely on technology - computers rather than people. For a corporation like Google that is built around technical excellence, a large portion of roles at the company must by their nature be about computers more than people.

Again though, this is not as described in the media an argument against hiring women - the author is instead stating something quite opposite: a way to hypothetically increase how many women Google hires.

Below this, the author makes some other statements that have caused offence - citing that on average women are less able to cope with stress, a claim that like similar claims may be sexist prejudice or a scientific fact and it is to science we should turn to find the answer, not feelings.

Next the author states this:

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

As this statement is about feminism, I will use the feminist jargon for this concept: "toxic masculinity" is the idea proposed by some feminists that men are expected to be a certain stereotypical way and are socially punished for being unmanly. He implies that feminism has done little to liberate men from this, which is likely to cause offence to those who identify as feminists in particular, but which is again a claim that lives or dies on evidence.

He also states again a proposed way to shrink, rather than encourage, the gender gap - the exact opposite of the allegation that he is proposing discrimination against women.

Since this statement can be read as a criticism of feminism, if Google is indeed biased towards progressive causes, it is likely to offend many of his colleagues who identify as feminists.

The author states further:

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

This is an argument that says diversity for the sake of diversity may not be a good idea in itself - this is likely why the author thinks affirmative action and similar policies are "bad for business", if diversity is valued over actual skill.

It should be noted that saying skill should be valued over diversity is absolutely NOT an argument that minorities lack skill - it is actually neutral on the question of whether minority groups are more, less or equally skilled.

Under the heading "the harm of Google's biases" the author states this:

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

This is a logical development of the general theme of the document - diversity itself is NOT something the author opposes, rather he opposes what he sees as forcing diversity in one area by removing it from other areas.

One particularly salient point here is this one:

Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

This implies an assumption that a group that has a disparity in representation between majority and minority individuals is a de-facto problem, and I would suggest that this is quite true. So long as minorities are not actively prohibited, a group that lacks minorities is not a problem.

When taken to the extreme, this assumption feeds into the martyr complex of actual bigots: white supremacists routinely represent their views as being about opposing discrimination against white people for example. Suffice to say, I am not fooled and neither should you be, but feeding their martyr complex makes extremists more extreme.

In the next section he has a footnote that has been widely mocked in the media:

Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure

Some have suggested the reference to communism is the author implying that diversity is equivalent to communism and thus bad. This is an incorrect way to read it. Instead, it appears communism is cited as an example of an ideology that intended good things, but in practice nearly always fails and leads to bad things and in the context of this document it appears to be saying that affirmative action is similar.

Finally, the author makes a list of suggestions for fixing the issues he has criticised while decreasing the gender gap - a list I will not repeat here as all the relevant core points are discussed above.

One thing is clear: in no way is this document a sexist anti-diversity screed, but it was most definitely unwise for the author to publish it under his real name in a work context, and it most definitely could be cited in a hostile workplace lawsuit by female employees.