This "punch you in the face" thing seems to be a sticking point for most of the comments here and I think people are misrepresenting what the author is trying to say. He's not advocating for violence, he's considering a possibility in which he would have to make managerial decisions based on animosity between employees over this "manifesto". That's reasonable. I'm not sure what kind of culture they have at Google, but from my time working as a software developer I've rarely discussed politics at the office. I avoid it. It has the potential to bring down the morale of the team. Just don't see the point in throwing a wrench into the gears of the company you work for to make a political point.

Don't you dare interact with him, or else you'll be ostracized as well.

Oh please. There's a reason why the writer of this "manifesto" felt the need to grovel and apologize in every opening paragraph. He knew how his peers would take it. You can't just raise into question the fundamental capability of every woman you work with and then expect them to want to work with you. People lose friends over Facebook posts. He deserves to be ostracized for bringing this crap into the office. There are no "thoughtcrimes" here, just someone with a persecution complex fomenting strife amongst his own colleagues. Would you want to work with someone like that?

I also think that using violent imagery to make a point is a bad idea in almost any context, even if clearly not ment literally. He did at least explicitly say he would not include that part if writing when on the job.

Can you please substantiate? Link to the "manifesto", https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

If you want a data-based analysis on which we can all probably agree, look at the success of Google. They've maintained these values over the years with the same founders and have found quite a bit of success.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ability+to+handle+stress+gen...

First result:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2010/gender-st...

First paragraph:

> Men and women* report different reactions to stress, both physically and mentally. They attempt to manage stress in very different ways and also perceive their ability to do so — and the things that stand in their way — in markedly different ways. Findings suggest that while women are more likely to report physical symptoms associated with stress, they are doing a better job connecting with others in their lives and, at times, these connections are important to their stress management strategies.

Note that the Gizmodo publication removed data and references from the text, https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

> The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

Disclaimer: I have no idea how this facet affects one's capacity of performing in a tech role, if at all.

> Disclaimer: I have no idea how this facet affects one's capacity of performing in a tech role.

Yeah. On the other hand, the manifesto author suggests that "stress tolerance" is gender based, and may affect your capacity to succeed in tech: "differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech"

It seems clear to me that the manifesto author "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with".

Could you quote the part of the manifesto that says so / gave this impression.

I totally understand the offensiveness and stupidity of such a belief -I just fail to see how the author argues for it given that he explicitly states the opposite

> 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.

As far as I can see the author is arguing average aptitudes in populations and consequent percentual representation of men and women not being 50/50. Not aptititudes of individuals. As the author also argues for actions that in their eyes increases the attractiveness of tech jobs to women they seem to think of the women that work with them as perfectly capable.

I appreciate any help in understanding this point of view. It just feels like we read different manifestos

> Could you quote the part of the manifesto that says so / gave this impression.

I did. The parts in quotes above are directly from the manifesto. He lists differences between sexes and claims one gender has "lower stress tolerance". That's a gross generalization that doesn't account for a lot of perception factors which I outlined in an above comment. He also prefaces that section by saying "these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech".

> As far as I can see the author is arguing average aptitudes in populations and consequent percentual representation of men and women not being 50/50. Not aptititudes of individuals

The author makes the claim that one sex's ineptitude in a modern role is, on average, rooted in biology. That's not supported by science.

I can understand that position and think we can call it a day as i don't feel qualified to argue the size of the effect. It could very well be just 1%, i.e. 49/51.

If not

> "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with"

> The author makes the claim that one sex's ineptitude in a modern role is, on average, rooted in biology. That's not supported by science.

This does not follow from your argument.

Your argument only supports that the author questions the ability of every women who fails to get a job in the field / that modern role.

If it is proven that biological differences do not significantly impact modern role preference and capability, you and the author agree that representation should be 50/50. He never specifies how much of an influence he believes biological differences to have, just that there could be some.

I also disagree with your assertion that the author questions any individual womens aptitude based on her gender. He is talking averages across the general population, not applicants after all.

I agree there are biological differences. But, one can't cite these as reasons why certain women don't land tech roles. That remains unstudied and is highly subjective from many angles. The process of determining "what is success" is, in part, having organizations that have different values, a free market, and separate countries ever since the Peace of Westphalia.

This subthread is about whether the manifesto "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with"

You wrote,

> Your argument only supports that the author questions the ability of every women who fails to get a job in the field / that modern role.

Are we simply disagreeing about to whom the author is referring? Like, are you saying that the author isn't talking about his current coworkers, but rather candidates for that field / role?

How would you feel if you were a woman working with this guy? If he criticized your work, would you not feel he is pre-judging you based on biological precepts? Wouldn't it be lousy to work with someone who thought you were biologically not able to do the job well?

> If it is proven that biological differences do not significantly impact modern role preference and capability,

Nobody needs to prove that biological differences don't impact modern role capability. It hasn't been proven.

I don't need to prove to you that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. The burden of proof is on you to show that they do.

> you and the author agree that representation should be 50/50.

Not really. Men choosing to hire men over women is a factor. The author is still making a gross generalization even if his intention is to only criticize women who didn't land a tech role. And regardless of his intention, he has ostracized himself from working with many women. That is his burden, not women's.

More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers"

It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the manifesto's argumentation. Furthermore, some statements match what I read in some evolutionary psychology books.

I believe it would be very helpful if people could correct the manifesto author's statements and provide references instead of attacking the author.

I don't see why they should lose social capital or the respect of their coworkers. Why does the US society want to punish people so severely for expressing opinions in a polite way instead of correcting them when necessary and giving them a second chance?

> The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

This says more about the bigotry and intolerance of the coworkers than the author of the manifesto. It also confirms the manifesto author's point entirely about the echo-chamber hostility towards anyone who doesn't toe the line.

If someone can't read that thoughtful, polite, sincere, and clearly-written piece and respond without "losing respect for their co-worker", they are far too sensitive.

People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"

The Google manifesto does not represent a "corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitude." That so many people are insane or lazy enough to think it does is precisely the author's point.

You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question.

Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.

Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.

Coercive behavior of any sort is rarely an appropriate response to a sincere and well-articulated argument. It is incumbent on the coercive actor to justify their actions. Usually, the justifications are not controversial. When they are, often that means there's a problem somewhere and that discussion really is necessary.

In this case, the author clearly explains why he believes this topic is important to discuss.

Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement?

No. Not unless you accept that it is justified to punish someone for posting a polite, articulate, well-informed argument made out of a genuine attempt to be both truthful and helpful to the mission of the organization. (note: well-informed does not mean comprehensive or right about everything. It just means good enough to start a dialog.)

Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.

Explain to me how the memo is corrosive. What is being corroded?

Explain to me how the memo is counterproductive. What is the desired production? How does the memo run counter to that production?

Explain to me how the memo represents a bad attitude. What is "bad" and "good?"

I say the memo is polite because it shows a substantial degree of sensitivity to the opposing arguments and ideology. The ideas are presented in a detached, academic manner with a clear effort to avoid sensational rhetoric or ranting.

I say the memo is sincere for several reasons. I am unable to detect any attempt to misrepresent or mischaracterize his opposition. He clearly demonstrates acceptance of personal responsibility for the opinions presented. Finally, he appeals to open discussion in a way that welcomes disagreement and sincere disputation of any points he makes. The one presumption of sincerity that I might have questioned-- that Google really is an ideological echo-chamber-- was overwhelmingly confirmed by the hostility of the response.

I say the memo is clear and thoughtful because the author uses plainly stated premises and syllogisms. He is straightforward with his points and transparent with his logic. While specific citations for supporting evidence could have been more rigorous, it's clear that the author is not just pulling these positions out of nowhere. Any reasonable attempt to continue discussion could challenge him to go into more detail about the supporting evidence.

That some of them are just smarter than you.

It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric. Intelligence is only a factor insofar as a baseline of intelligence is needed to comprehend the argument. I'm not an expert but I suspect most of the people hysterical about the manifesto are smart enough to understand it, if they knew how to read it properly.

Hm.

While one can tolerate people referring to it as a manifesto for the sake of clarity, since his name is not common knowledge and there is no other catchy title associated with it, it's not reasonable to use that language to imply that what was written is actually a manifesto by the dictionary definition of the word.

A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government.

That is quite clearly not what the author's piece actually is.

I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.

Try your tough guy act in real life and you'll have a very serious discussion with the police.

All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "talking, not hitting."

Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence

lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet.

You think I'd learn.

In fact, this discussion is a demonstration of my point. We are both attacking one another's intellectual and moral reasoning abilities via speech. This is better than than us having a fist fight over the matter.

No one has. And no one will, because the piece is very polite, sincere, well-written, and reasonable.

Anyone can claim their feelings are hurt by someone speaking the truth as they see it. That doesn't mean you get to use that claim (true or not) to impose your will forcefully on others any time you want to.

If this "manifesto" was actually racist and bigoted, it still doesn't excuse violence, or the suggestion of violence. That is FAR worse. It's un-American. We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely.

Not to mention, one person published what they thought at risk of being ostracized by their community and workplace. The other person doesn't work at Google, has 0 real risk, and is just taking the status quo stance and presenting a holier-than-thou approach.

This is all you need to see: "Either political analysis of authoritarian regimes, or interesting facts about science, depending on my mood."

What this means is:

Wahhhh Trump! I'm pretty moody and better than you, so I'll only discuss something if I can look good doing it or I can impress everybody.

Agreed. Yonatan Zunger holds some very disturbing views. Google is better off being rid of him.

We also don't hire the KKK. Those of us who run companies or manage people respect our employees more than to have a gay employee pair program with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Free speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions.

The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.

The problem is that someone has to bear a cost when opinions like this are made public.

Since the original manifesto author has advocated nothing remotely analogous to that, I would say that your attempted comparison is intellectually dishonest and places you on far more morally shaky ground than him.

Moreover, if "...someone has to bear a cost when opinions like this are made public...", as you say, are you in turn willing to pay the the same cost if public opinion turns against your political views? Any behavior you legitimize to attack your political enemies becomes equally legitimate to use against you when the public mood shifts! You'd have to be bonkers to think this sort of thing is a good idea to normalize.

Maybe you should refer upthread where someone else threw out that comparison, not me? I was replying to them with the theoretical they outlined.

I don't really know how to respond to the rest of your post. Public moods have always shifted, and people's public responses have changed. It's already normalised. People used to be openly racist, now they aren't. Their racism then wasn't correct at the time and incorrect now, it was always wrong. Will my views become equally offensive some day? I don't see why I would assume they will. And if they do, and I don't adjust, maybe I will deserve to be called out for it.

It already happened before in the past and it was directed against the left. Do the names "Joe McCarthy" and the "Red Scare" of the 1950s ring a bell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

If Senator McCarthy and the Committee for Unamerican Activities had knocked on your door and condemned you for being a leftist, would you have sheepishly smiled and said (to paraphrase you own words), "Gee, Senator, maybe I do deserve to be called out for it." and quietly accepted the destruction of your life for holding a politically unpopular view? Is that truly what you are saying?

I give up. I can only hope that your movement is discredited and expelled from the left before it does as much damage as McCarthy did before he was discredited.

There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cognizant of this. How would you propose this be brought up in today's climate without offending people?

I don't know if you haven't read the manifesto, or are happy making simplifications for the sake of making conclusive moral statements, but it is wildly dishonest to claim the manifesto argued that "women are genetically inferior." It argued that on average, looking at various traits and preferences, men and women are better at and care about different things, some of which make them better suited -- again, on average-- to some professions than others.

You can disagree and that can be a fun internet argument, but judging by the reaction to this manifesto, the sheer outrage while misrepresenting the manifesto's content, sort of demonstrates the author's meta-point about ideological homogeneity.

But there isn't. There is an argument that women are, on average, better than men at chess. But that argument does not apply to an individual person. Why would you use male vs female average IQ when judging who becomes a member of the chess team? Why not assess the candidates IQ? Or, maybe have them play chess and see how well they do?

There is a persistent theory that diversity programmes exist to promote underqualified minorities over qualified white people. That's not true. The aim of the programmes is to find people who have been disadvantaged by this exact kind of (often subconscious) "well when you average group X out over the entire country ignoring educational achievement and employment history, typically they're not so good" thinking and have lost out on past opportunities.

You're right, I was using some excessive shorthand in my original post and will amend it - the assumptions are not genetic, they are social. But the point still stands, why be making these assumptions at all?

* If the real goal is to find overlooked, qualified people, we should expect to see more moneyball type thinking, and less lazy diversity-for-diversity's-sake thinking.

* The current trend of hyperfocusing on social causes of behavior and making biological ones taboo seems dangerous. I would argue that a comprehensive, accurate description of how people work makes you better at grounding your compassion in effective results. To that end, overlooking something as big as biology seems an easy way to enact a policy that's well-intentioned but harmful.

* Some people may appeal to biology in a sexist way and maybe history has many examples, but some people really just want to know what the truth is. Another way of making this point: https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/846520296240693248

Google is supposed to be a data-driven organization.

If the engineers they've hired can't tell the difference between statistical distance and the utility value of a Gaussian distribution, I think they have an entirely different issue on their hands...

Are we reading the same manifesto? The one I read argues that men and women are different. Pros and cons. Strengths and weaknesses.

I think you are the one holding a binary view while conflating different and inferior?

That's not what he said at all. He said they are, on average, different, but people can't talk about it without resorting to these Trumpish generalizations and accusations. Did you actually read it?

Can you please substantiate? Link for the manifesto: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

This could be very easily misread by someone not paying close attention. Consider "argues that" instead of "clearly lays out the fact that."