Skip to main content

What the Google Memo Proves About Society

Former Google engineer James Damore's memo signals the emergence of an astounding social trend away from truth and facts toward the preferred comforts of idealizations rooted in untested fantasies about the way the world should operate over the pursuit of understanding how and why it operates conversely today.

What's more, it seems as though some intellectuals' contentions are more or less equal than others, as the ensuing ridicule of Damore as an "ass hole" qualifies as allowable humor, while his own honest opinions on a subject intimately important to him are sexist or "bull shit."

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon one's agenda or point of view, the world fails to operate on the basis of any single individual's determination of "bull shit."

The world operates the way it does because of individuals pursuing their own maximum advantage while weighing marginal benefit against marginal labor along the way.

All of these many incremental transactions and expressions of preference then materialize into measurable aggregates that the statistician or critic is able to leverage to construct a cohesive narrative, occasionally wrapped in a warped philosophical paradigm motivated by one's own preference for different outcomes.

In the case of hard sciences, men have perennially scored higher than their female counterparts on the SAT, where the evincible gender gap ranges from 30 to 40 points in mathematics.



And while women have earned nearly 10 million more college degrees than men since 1982, the female gender still constitutes less than one-fifth of all degrees earned in engineering and computer science.



At this point, the conversation transforms into one of form over substance, whereby a distinguishable participation gap exists between the two genders, despite the relative dearth of female-specific demand for those positions and the fact that one of the two genders demonstrates a simple competitive advantage in, and affinity for, the field.

What's more, Damore staked a scientifically-valid claim about women being particularly neurotic, proving a relatively organic obstacle to their placement in, or pursuit of, fields deeply entrenched in the relatively more rigid and uncompromising frameworks of the hard sciences.

The facts even bear out the more wildly unpopular contention, "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things."

Take, for example, the automotive industry, where women constitute less than two percent of all mechanics and auto technicians in the United States.

In that same industry, women comprise 21.2% of automobile dealers, 7.3% of automotive and maintenance employees, and broadly one-quarter of the whole automotive workforce.

In this case, most of the population would more than happily admit that men and women, on average, value cars and trucks differently.

In fact, the data also bear this out, revealing that women tend to prioritize safety and affordability when shopping for a new car, while their male counterparts prioritize exterior styling and reputation.

The female affinity for safety and affordability is also reflected in the average woman's financial literacy, work placement, negotiation practices, risk tolerance, participation in commissions-based roles, and investment in the stock market and household financial affairs.

Meanwhile, their preference for dramas, such as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, juxtaposes against their male counterparts' intimate attachment to action and risk-taking at young ages, when they're becoming more widely acquainted with sports and taking risks to impress their friends and the neighborhood girls.

Men also have a preference for machinery, video games, history, guns and action-packed films, such as The Fast and the Furious, a series which cinematically represents with impunity nearly every one of the gender-specific preferences which pervade the Western world.

Somehow, though, when real actors in the real world speak real truths about real phenomena, the zealots of the church of drama and imaginary grievances will rally to sound nearly every reachable alarm and chirp every available buzzphrase at the complete expense of truth and any remaining drop of respect for opposing opinion.

Men and Women are Different

The world tends everywhere toward some semblance of equilibrium.

Men and women, though on average valued nominally differently in terms of executive commercial and professional function, operate within the realm of trade-offs.

This often takes the form of male earnings to enable female, or family, expenses or to cater to the cultural-, relational-inertial forces of gender-specific responsibility and those executive qualities which are, primitively speaking, characteristic of a qualified mate and consensually and conveniently assumed by each member of the household.

Psychologist Adrian Furnham contends, “Boys negotiate pocket money and allowances with the father, though girls may be encouraged to charm their fathers into opening their wallets. Hence some girls come to believe that financial wheeling and dealing is a masculine activity and shun all money matters for fear that it renders them somehow less feminine.”

The author continues, “Various considered the differing attitudes that males and females have toward money and concluded that females regarded money as being of less importance than did males.”

Vivian Lim and Thompson Teo, in the Journal of Economic Psychology, similarly conclude that males and females differ in their attitudes towards money with regard to obsession and power. Males were more likely to demonstrate obsessive and power attitudes toward money than females.

The measurable gaps between men and women, on the whole, may after all be the mere manifestation of the specific pressures applied to males in their respective roles as the anticipated providers of their respective households, a set of outcomes supported by the market for courting women.

Meanwhile, women are rewarded for distinctly different traits which are not necessarily inclusive of their respective capacities to generate income for the household.

The general market outcome — that is, those discernible averages and perceived imbalances based on gender — may spawn from the ubiquity of academically-repugnant, yet privately-desirable preferences which are mutually expressed, desired, perpetuated and encouraged by men and women in their private relationships.

So while Damore's promulgation may appear to merit sharp scrutiny on the surface, the shrewd investigator will first explore the depths of his argument and the expansive sea of information to personally determine whether "the differences in distribution of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50 percent representation of women in tech and leadership."

Damore concludes, "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive and bad for business."

In separate context, Damore's opponents would surely agree that gender- or race-specific discrimination practices are ill-suited for the workplace; however, it seems as though their contentions would reach only so far as the standard proves advantageous to their own demographic.

As soon as anyone challenges policies that disrupt the generation of these narrowly-distributed advantages to a group who intends to unwittingly condemn the customs of the average American woman, that individual is set to become the freshest target for character assassination and the next poster child for white supremacy and white privilege.

For the intents and purposes of this rally, truth will hardly interfere with the concoction of the better narrative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes