This is well supported by research [1].

System 1 is based on quick, emotionally based assessments. It's where your flight-or-flight response lies. Only once System 1 has sufficiently engaged, can System 2 take over and slowly chew on it.

Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1

> Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system.

This is one of the best takeaways from this whole sorry saga.

I disagree; a text that agreed with the overall company position on the topic would not get shouted at. I may be wrong, but I think one could take that and push a bit in any direction without arousing intellectual antibodies. I personally know people who got quite a few "dangerous" ideas past the censors of a fascist dictatorship, where the stakes were incomparably higher than writing a memo at Google. It's a skill, though.

It's a skill, that's right. The article actually alluded to it by mentioning Kolmogorov's approach to criticising Lysenkoism.

The author of the Google memo obviously didn't have that skill. He approached it in exactly the wrong way - by writing a solid, coherent piece, full of links to actual research, which politely but assertively argued that current Google policies around diversity are wrong and harmful. That's direct disobedience, and direct disobedience gets you a hammer.