---
title: "Linking to archived site, as they're under heavy load.  Original…"
date: 2017-08-09
source: facebook
type: Archer T. Ships shared a link.
---

# Linking to archived site, as they're under heavy load.  Original…

*August 9, 2017 · Facebook*

::::: {}
::: {}
[https://archive.is/VlNfl](https://archive.is/VlNfl){target="_blank"}
:::

::: {}
Linking to archived site, as they\'re under heavy load. Original here:\
\
[http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/](http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/){target="_blank"}\
\
[https://archive.is/VlNfl](https://archive.is/VlNfl){target="_blank"}\
\
\"Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the 'equality and diversity' dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn't address this paradox directly, but I think it's implicit in the author's critique of Google's diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:\
\
\* The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;\
\
\* The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.\
\
The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.\
\
Let me explain.\
\
If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness.\
\
For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other's quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.)\
\
But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn't matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.\"
:::
:::::