Summary: The Google memo shows how, as usual in America, chaos results when politics and science collide. Here are notes by James Bowman, journalists, and scientists explaining different aspects of the debate to us.
Contents.
- Bowman looks at the debate.
- Articles mentioned.
- Scientists comment on the Google memo.
- About James Bowman.
- For More Information.
- About honor.
Bowman looks at the debate about the Google memo.
From his website, 16 August 2017.
Reposted with his generous permission.
In all the fuss over Google’s firing of an engineer named James Damore (surely a corruption of “D’amore”?) for expressing an opinion about sex differences {in the Google memo}, the main focus has been upon the poor fellow’s right to freedom of speech, if any, with only secondary consideration being given to the merits, if any, which may be allowed to his point of view.
When that subject comes up, so, inevitably, does science. Or “science,” since when science is invoked to resolve a political argument it is rarely science in the strict sense. Usually it means the opinions of some scientist or group of scientists whose political views almost certainly antedate their scientific researches but, nevertheless, somehow turn out to have been confirmed by them.
At the weekend, we had a good example of this process in contrasting articles which appeared in London’s Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times. In the Telegraph, Zoe Strimpel writes that “Damore seems oblivious to the vigorous critique of these ideas that has been ongoing for a good twenty years or more,” mentioning in particular “such books such as Brain Gender
Meanwhile, over at The Sunday Times, Dominic Lawson cites “a recent article in the journal Stanford Medicine on ‘the cognitive difference between men and women’” and “a fascinating article by the academic psychologist Lee Jussim” as being equally conclusive the other way. Professor Jussim isn’t assigned to a prestigious institution of higher learning like Cambridge or Columbia (or Stanford) but if you look up his Wikipedia article you will find that his affiliation is with Rutgers University in New Jersey. You will also find that the article is “being considered for deletion” on the ostensible grounds that the professor “doesn’t appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for academics.”
I guess Mr Lawson’s and The Sunday Times’s mention doesn’t do any good for Dr Jussim’s fulfilment of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, though one can guess at other reasons why those who regard views like his as scandalous might be as keen to get him out of Wikipedia as Sundar Pichai was to get Mr Damore out of Google.
At any rate, whenever anyone mentions “science” as an authority these days, on sex differences as on global warming, we need to bear in mind that “science” today does not exclude — as science properly so-called must exclude — efforts such as these to silence heterodox opinions. As a result, science has lost some if not all of its credibility and authority, since we can never be sure if its claims are based on the science or the politics which is now allowed to monitor it.
On the matter of sex differences, I would stipulate that they are socially constructed, as feminists claim, and then try to make the case that they are constructed in the way they traditionally have been constructed for very good reasons, since any given community with properly constructed and distinct sex roles has a better chance of survival in the struggle with other communities that has been a feature of human life for as long as human life has existed. For evidence in support of this proposition, you only have to look at the depopulation of Western countries where feminism has been most successful at breaking down sex differences and their repopulation with non-Westerners, most of whom have views of the matter that make Mr Damore’s seem positively progressive. But there the silence of science has the same purpose as the defenstration of Mr Damore and the demotion of Dr Jussim, which is to protect the progressive scientist from unpalatable realities.
———————————–
(2) Articles mentioned.
“Sexist, yes, but I sympathise with the Google whistleblower” by Zoe Strimpel (journalist, bio) in The Telegraph.
“Let’s man up: males make likelier geeks” by Dominic Lawson in The Times — “A Googler has been sacked simply for telling an uncomfortable truth.”
“Why Brilliant Girls Tend to Favor Non-STEM Careers” by Lee Jussim (Professor of Psychology, Rutgers; his website and Wikipedia entry) in Psychology Today, 20 July 2017 — “This essay is about bias, but not the bias you think.”
“Two minds: The cognitive differences between men and women” by Bruce Goldman in Stanford Medicine, Spring 2017.
(3) Four scientists comment on the Google memo.
I strongly recommend reading “The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond” by Quillette Magazine.
Lee Jussim (Professor of Psychology, Rutgers; his website and Wikipedia entry).
“The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. …Here, I mainly focus on the reactions to the essay on the Gizmodo site, which indirectly and ironically validate much of the author’s analysis. Very few of the comments actually engage the arguments; they just fling insults and slurs. …
“This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than nearly all of the comments.”
David P Schmitt (Professor of Psychology at Bradley U; wikipedia entry).
“A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain. …”
Geoffrey Miller (Professor of Psychology, U of NM; Wikipedia entry).
“An anonymous male software engineer recently distributed a memo titled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’. Within hours, this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research.
“When the memo went viral, thousands of journalists and bloggers transformed themselves overnight from not understanding evolutionary psychology at all to claiming enough expertise to criticize the whole scientific literature on biological sex differences.
“For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. …Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. …
“American businesses also have to face the fact that the demographic differences that make diversity useful will not lead to equality of outcome in every hire or promotion. Equality or diversity: choose one. In my opinion, given that sex differences are so well-established, and the sexes have such intricately complementary quirks, it may often be sensible, in purely practical business terms, to aim for more equal sex ratios in many corporate teams, projects, and divisions. …”
Debra W Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York).
“As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership. …”
(4) About James Bowman.
Bowman is a Resident Scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
He has worked as a freelance journalist, serving as American editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London from 1991 to 2002, as movie critic of The American Spectator since 1990 and as media critic of The New Criterion since 1993. He has also been a weekly movie reviewer for The New York Sun since the newspaper’s re-foundation in 2002. He has also contributed to a wide range of other major papers.
Mr. Bowman is perhaps best known for his book, Honor: A History
See his collected articles at his website, including his film reviews going back to 1994.
(5) For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women, society, and the gender wars — and especially these…
- Mockingjay” shows us a Revolution in Gender Roles. What’s the next revolution?
- The revolution in gender roles reshapes society in ways too disturbing to see.
- A look ahead at the New America, after the gender wars.
- Guides to help us during the revolution in gender roles.
- Books to help us see the strange new world following the revolution in gender roles.
- The collapse of gender roles: an unseen revolution with unimaginable consequences.
- Journalists are excited about Nicola Thorp’s story of high heels, feminism, journalism, & big government.
(6) About James Bowman’s great book.
One of the great unremarked changes in western societies is the shift from an honor-based culture to law-based one. Bowman’s Honor: A History
“The importance of honor is present in the earliest records of civilization. Today, while it may still be an essential concept in Islamic cultures, in the West, honor has been disparaged and dismissed as obsolete.
“In this lively and authoritative book, James Bowman traces the curious and fascinating history of this ideal, from the Middle Ages through the Enlightenment and to the killing fields of World War I and the despair of Vietnam. Bowman reminds us that the fate of honor and the fate of morality and even manners are deeply interrelated.”
