How To Tell The Truth

Often I feel like I’m censoring myself, and this is a problem because censorship is not exactly conducive to great communication. At its best, the truth comes out clear, pointed, and direct. At worst it comes out insensitive, rude, and clearly for my own amusement. More often it comes out somewhere in between, dancing around the inoffensive and the somewhat vague notion of any worthwhile conclusions.

Truth is the art of poetry and the science of comedy.

There are so many ways to tell the truth ineffectively. There are truths that don’t matter, truths with bad timing, truths that get people imprisoned or killed.

Nietzsche said, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” Often people don’t want to tell the truth because they don’t want the title of Destroyer of Illusions. The avenues of poetry and comedy give us some indication of how to tell the truth in a way that it can actually be heard. As a way of purging any of my inclination of untruths, half-truths, or post-truths here are 10 of the most controversial things I could think of in 10 minutes:

  1. Women are beautiful partly because we are weak. Without the seperation of power between men and women, women would have never had the opportunity to develop power through beauty.
  2. Men have the capacity to be the most violent creatures on earth, and that’s why women are jealous of them.
  3. The parts of gender that are a socially constructed today, are the parts that will be genetically engineered tomorrow.
  4. Atheists are right about so many things, everything they’re wrong about is religion.
  5. Some things you can measure don’t exist, other things you could never measure obviously do.
  6. If the poor were ever honest about their vices, they might have to stop enabling us.
  7. It’s a lot easier to wrap your identity around your poor choices than it is to start making better choices.
  8. The only thing I regret are my mistakes.
  9. Those who want more freedoms know it comes with extra responsibilities. Those who try to sell their freedoms think the trade works both ways.
  10. If you were to tell the truth, you would be found out.

How and Why Religions Die // The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins

I found the book in a local bookstore near the local farmers market, and opened it up to this quote:

May religions perish of disease or only violence?

James Bissett Pratt

It is an interesting question, how a religion lives and dies? If we’re interested in preserving or ending a religion, we ought to know what its weaknesses are.

Nietzsche said,

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Nietzsche believed that rejection of God would force us to reject absolute values themselves. A hundred years later we see that this is obviously true to some degree. We see it in the cultural acceptance of nihilism and moral relativism. We see it in the media and in pop culture. But people are tired of living meaningless inherent in nihilism, and a counterculture is growing in response.

Universally preferable behavior (UPB), the non-aggression principle (NAP), the moral landscape and the concept of using science to determine human values all exist as atheistic laws of objective morality. We need a philosophy of ethics to fill the casket of a dead god.

Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Nietzsche

Eastern Christianity expressed Nietzsche’s same sentiment with a slightly more optimistic tone some several hundred years before,

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.

AthanasiusBishop of Alexandria

The concept of the Holy Trinity in Christianity is one just one place where the religion crosses the line between reality and the mystical. Humans abstracted the idea of God to be the ideal of perfection. A perfection we knew we would never obtain, so we could spend the rest of our lives trying desperately to obtain it.


The Lost History of A Global Christianity

As sad as it is to admit, the majority of Americans know nothing about the history of Christianity. We know it came from the Middle East to the West, and that Jesus wasn’t cool with Caesar. Teaching religion in America is so politicized, we’ve decided not to teach history at all.

Schools teach confusion and disconnected facts. When the reality is that family, race, and religion are all entangled. Understanding how they influence the world is essential for understanding our evolution as a culture, and ourselves as people.

The history of the Christianity is not as whitewashed as The American Textbook Council would have you believe. Christianity is not just a Western European tradition. For hundreds of years, it had a global reach from out of the Middle East into Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Christianity did not become uniquely European until,

  • The Arab invasion of Africa in the 600’s. Before then, the major cities of Rome were seated in Africa and speaking Latin.
  • The outlaw of Christianity by the Ming dynasty in China. Before then, the Nestorians had spread the religion in Asia among the Mongols from the 600’s to 1500’s.
  • The conversion of pagans, and overthrow of Muslims in Spain in the 1500’s.

Identity Entanglement: Ethnicities, Families, States, and Religions

Ethnicity

Ethnicity and religion are deeply connected. In the early days of Muslim jihad, Muslims had a hard time keeping the faith together. They fought two civil wars in the 600’s, and two more in the 700’s. At a time when the religion was fracturing their Arab identity was the primary foundation that kept the religion intact.

Muslims were slow to identify themselves as a distinct religion wholly separate from jews and Christians matters were seen on ethnic terms Muslims and Christians but of Arabs and Syrians.

Philip JenkinsThe Lost History of Christianity

Arabs became Muslims, and the Syrians became Muslim-light. The Syrians maintained cultural aspects of Christianity because they were Christians for hundreds of years before Muslim rule.

In the Shiite tradition, for instance, the Alawites made up just 11 percent of the population of Syria, but they hold disproportionate political power under the Asad family and the Baathist Party, which has been in office since 1970. They not only venerate the prophet Ali but see him as an incarnation of God - an idea that appalls orthodox Muslims. They have a special devotion for Jesus, they celebrate some Christian holidays, and Christian elements survive in their liturgy as of the people of light, seeking salvation in a world of darkness. In older sources, they are usually called Nusayris be descriptive: it means “little Christians.”

Philip JenkinsThe Lost History of Christianity

A sliver of Shittes religious history can shed a bit of light on the issue of why the Shiites are a continually persecuted minority in the region.

Family

All Abrahamic religions are familial descendants of Abraham. The shared history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was one that united them against the pagans.

Under Muslim rule:

Christians were treated better than other groups, who did not qualify as approved and tolerated People of the Book. In theory, we might expect the Zoroastrian religion to have been persecuted from the beginning, as the Quran condemned fire worshipers as pagan. In fact, Muslims attitudes were initially more favorable, only gradually were harsher standards applied. Increasingly, Muslims destroyed the fire temples and built mosques on the sites; churches, in contrast, operated publicly.

Philip JenkinsThe Lost History of Christianity

While a shared history and descent can unify, it can also divide. As is the case with the fundamental split between Muslims between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and the Muslims and the Christians at large.

Underlying the struggle between the Christians and Muslims is the fact that theirs is, ultimately, a conflict within a family, and no feud is more bitter.

Philip JenkinsThe Lost History of Christianity

States

The political affiliation between Church and State is always risky for both parties. Which is why there is no such divide in the Islamic faith. State protection can help a religion survive, as it did when the Christian united across countries in Europe to protect themselves from Muslim invasions.

Or religions and states can turn on each other. Spliting on political lines, when one identity take precedence over another.

This is what happened with this Christians in Mesopotamia and China who came to be seen as tools for the Mongol conquerors. Japanese Christians were targets as potential allies of European imperialism; Latin Christians in the Levan, and the advance guard of the crusader movement.

Philip JenkinsThe Lost History of Christianity

How do Religions Die?

Religions die like all group identities. They die when extinguished, forgoten, or abandoned. Our group identities are only tools; tools that can unify us or divide us.

We all bleed together, but sing songs of suffering in different languages.

We know this true because it’s so impossibly difficult to say where one identity ends and another begins.

  • Judaism a religion, for the Jewish people, in the State of Israel.
  • Islam requires that prayers be said, in Arabic.
  • America is one country, under God.

Identities are like phenotypic traits and tend to come as pairs.

  • Blonde hair, blue eyes. American Christian.
  • Chinese Buddhist. Small noses, wide cheeks.
  • Sunni Muslim. Libyan Arab.

People have multiple, sometimes conflicting identities. Ultimately, people choose to identify with whatever group they believe is most “like them”. Whether that’s in appearance status or disposition.

We all have identities we inherit, and identities we co-create. Every individual needs group identities because we are social animals. As social animals, we need an identity to root us in tradition, and an identity to move us forward into action.

Religions and languages span multiple states. States encompass people of various religions and ethnicities. Despite the current totalitarian laws of a politically correct dominant culture, there is nothing wrong or inherently evil about identifying connections between race, religion, and culture.

Why do Religions Die?

Religions die for the same reason states fall, the same reason species go extinct.

Religions die because they are only human.

The Google Manifesto (A Woman's Perspective)

Diversity is very a dangerous topic.

For a number of reasons:

  1. A Google engineer was recently fired for it discussing it.
  2. There are nightmarish regulations around it. These can be emotionally taxing and expensive.
  3. Nearly everyone agrees we ought to strive for a meritocracy and “hire the best person for the job,” but no one wants to have the conversation as to if diversity quotas are good or bad for a system of meritocracy.
  4. If people within an institution feel that they don’t have shared values, it damages their ability to cooperate.
  5. If you can’t cooperate, you don’t have a company.

A senior Google Software engineer wrote an email on this dangerous topic. Whats being called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” manifesto has been circulating the internet.

I could respond with this graph…

This says everything, but in case images aren’t your thing I’ve hashed out some words.

If you are having a diversity debate in your company, the least creative thing you could do is double down on the side of diversity. Anti-discrimination laws protect political affiliation. Conservatives may be the minority in tech, but they’re the majority in the supreme court.

Recognize that a conversation about diversity is a political discussion. Values are never going to align with laser like levels of precision; a more creative option is to bring the diversity conversation back to the shared values of the company at large. Maybe Google was able to do some of this internally, but from outside this another authoritarian PR disaster.

As a woman in tech,

I think his piece articulated many of the problems with straying away from a meritocracy. Diversity quotas make it easy women to question the value they offer. Since the suspicion is that the woman is a diversity hire, there is potential for resentment on both sides underlies that uncertainty.

If you are a woman in tech,

As a conservative in tech,

I am always interested when I see a conservative engineer attempt the diversity question. Honesty and civility are something I strive for, something we should all strive for. But when people refuse to communicate the consequences are authoritarian. I don’t know what the proper way to handle political disagreements in the office is, but I don’t know that hierarchies are not just politics. They are real.

If you are a conservative in tech,

Senior positions at a company are not symbolic. This article is on the surface about diversity, but at a deeper level it is about competence. People rise in corporate dominance hierarchies not just because they are more “powerful”, but because they’re more competent and competence makes people more powerful. When we promote someone to the status of a senior position we give them more resources, higher pay because people respect them. And respect is necessary for the functioning of a proper hierarchy.

The take away from this manifesto and its authors’ subsequent firing is not just that Google is trying to silence conservatives, but its blinding itself of what conservatives see plainly. The Silicon Valley is undermining its hierarchy by not prioritizing good leaders and cultivating its outrage culture.

Full Manifesto Below:


Reply to public response and misrepresentation

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. 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. 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.

TL:DR

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
    This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • 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
  • 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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

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.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, 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. 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.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. 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.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from 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.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

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 becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and 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).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • 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.

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 principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

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:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.