Imagine for a second that, controlling for all environmental factors, the average IQ of men was shown to be 3 points lower than women. (Totally hypothetical.) Additionally, women in this world outperform men at chess by a noticeable margin.

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.

> There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess

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?

* I've always assumed "frogs are bigger than toads" has "on average" implied, and that obviously some toads are bigger than some frogs.

* 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

>But that argument does not apply to an individual person.

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...

>The manifesto argues that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

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?

> What an absurd statement. The manifesto argues that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

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?

> The manifesto argues that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

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

>> The manifesto clearly lays out the fact that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job.

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

Fair. Edited. Thanks!