What does a  politically correct company do when it is demonstrably wrong,
empirically wrong, in the values  assumptions it makes ?  
Answer:  If the company is Google it  retreats into psychological denial,
it doubles down on its  discredited values  -because, when all is said, 
its leadership is  ideologically driven and closed minded.
All in the name of enlightened values and  scientific progress, of course. 
Google has became a parody of itself, a joke, a  laughing stock. 
Why does a mega-corporation commit  suicide?  That, Horatio, is the 
BR comments 
The Federalist 
The Science Says the Google Guy was right  about Sex Differences 
A myriad of distinguished professors and social scientists  have
already confirmed what James Damore wrote in his Google  memo:
Men and women are measurably different.
By _Glenn T.  Stanton_ (http://thefederalist.com/author/glennstanton/)  
August 11, 2017 
The Google guy behind the infamous _gender memo_ 
 , James 
Damore, is a  troglodyte. An embarrassing, knuckle-dragging, flat-earther who 
under the  silly illusion that men and women have inherent differences. 
Google properly  fired him for just being stupid. At least that’s the 
fashionable  story. 
But the truth is that it was Damore who got it right. (And his main  
concern was how to get more women working at Google, after all.) 
Most of us know exactly why gender parity  doesn’t exist in Silicon Valley. 
It’s not because they are consciously (or  unconsciously) denying 
employment to women who are seeking jobs there. Actually,  quite the opposite. 
the fact that while women _outpace_ 
  men in  college 
attendance today, those interested in _STEM_ 
(https://www.livescience.com/43296-what-is-stem-education.html) programs _lag 
significantly behind_ 
(https://archive.fo/7Oji2) . Other professions tend to interest them more. In  
fact, the annual _U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index_ 
reported last year that 
enrollment  among women in such programs declined from 2015 to 2016. 
U.S. News reports that “Women may lag behind  men in areas like 
engineering, for example, but they far outstrip men in earning  biology 
degrees.” For 
instance, women make up 80 percent of the students  enrolled in the Cornell 
University College of Veterinary Medicine. Wendy  Williams, a professor in 
Cornell’s Department of Human Development, explains  that “Women are choosing 
to do different things. Everyone doesn’t want to be an  electrical engineer 
or to do computer science, and that’s not a failure or  flaw.” Allowing 
women to choose what they want to do, without external and  ideological 
pressure, is empowerment. 
We know that men and women are hard-wired  differently—not better, not worse
—in part because of the breakthroughs in two  very interesting fields of 
scientific inquiry: one is the hard science of  neurobiology and the other is 
the softer science of cultural anthropology and  evolutionary psychology. Let
’s first examine the findings of neurobiology from  the last two decades or 
The Case from Neurobiology
Two of the earliest experts to write on  this issue are the British team of 
geneticist Anne Moir and science journalist  David Jessel in their 
groundbreaking book _Brain Sex_ 
(https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Sex.html?id=WOPgAfHjljoC) . Based 
on their own work and that of others, Moir and  
Jessel explain with equal parts boldness, clarity, and sureness: 
… The truth is that virtually every  professional scientist and researcher 
into the subject has concluded that the  brains of men and women are 
different. … [T]he nature and cause of brain  differences are now known beyond 
speculation, beyond prejudice, and beyond  reasonable doubt.

Moir and Jessel anticipated the Google meltdown  in this observation: “
There has seldom been a greater divide between what  intelligent, enlightened 
opinion presumes—that men and women have the same  brain—and what sciences 
knows—that they do not.” Thus, “It is time to cease the  vain contention that 
men and women are created the same. They were not and no  amount of 
idealism or Utopian fantasy can alter that fact.” 
This does not necessarily bode ill for  women. Northwestern’s Alice Eagly 
is a feminist scholar emeritus and major  contributor to the field of the 
social psychology of gender difference. She  explains in an important journal 
article entitled _“The Science and Politics of Comparing Women  and Men,”_ 
)  that in dealing in male and female  stereotypes in the popular and 
professional literature, “the stereotypes of  women [are] more positive overall 
than the stereotype of men, at least in  contemporary samples of U.S. and 
Canadian college students.”  She adds that  when examined, the literature on 
gender difference indeed “do not tell a simple  tale of female inferiority.” 
It is not a small point to note that she is writing  here in the early to 
mid-90s, examining earlier records in a time when we were  less mindful of 
avoiding gender stereotypes in academic work. 
Additionally, like Moir and Jessel,  writing in the journal _Feminism and 
, Eagly also distinguishes between elite  assumption and 
scientific findings. 
… [T]he majority of [studies] have conformed  in a general way to people’s 
ideas about the sexes… this evidence suggests  that lay people, once 
maligned in much feminist writing as misguided holders  of gender stereotypes, 
be fairly sophisticated observers of female and  male behaviour.
She is saying grandma knew what she was  talking about. Of course, the 
nature of male and female brain differences has  wide-ranging differences for 
the whole person. Leading neuropsychiatrist Louanne  Brizendine, working from 
the University of California San Francisco, explains  in _The Female Brain_ 
zendine-md/9780767920100/) , that while male and female are certainly more  
similar than they are different, our seemingly small neurological and 
genetic  differences create substantial and significant differences in the two  
More  than 99 percent of male and female genetic coding is exactly the 
same. Out of  the thirty thousand genes in the human genome, the less than one 
percent  variation between the sexes is small. But that percentage difference 
 influences every  single cell in our bodies—from  the nerves that register 
pleasure and pain to neurons that transmit perception,  thoughts, feelings 
and emotions.
Simon Baron-Cohen, professor of Developmental  Psychopathology at the 
University of Cambridge, outlines a great many important  and primary contrasts 
between the female and male mind in his deeply researched  book “_The 
Essential Difference_ 
 .” From the first lines of his book, 
Baron-Cohen is  frank with his reader: 
The subject of essential sex  differences in the mind is clearly very 
delicate. I could tiptoe around it,  but my guess is that you would like the 
theory of the book stated plainly. So  here it is: The  female brain is 
predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is  predominantly 
for understanding and building  systems.
These leading and distinguished professors  would all be fired from Google. 
The Anthropological and Evolutionary  Record
Do male and female demonstrate different  personalities in how they live, 
structure their lives, and interact with others?  If so, how distinct are 
these differences? And how reliable is the  research? 
The answers to these questions, in order, are  “absolutely,”  “
considerable,” and“quite.” This has become well documented in  a growing body 
multi-cultural anthropological  investigations.

The Google memo smartly made reference to what  social psychologists call 
the “Big Five Personality Traits,” and it was right to  do so. Evolutionary 
biologists have examined these across more than 50 distinct  cultures 
throughout the globe and determined gender-distinct qualities and  
are largely universal from culture to culture. 
One group of scholars, describing their  findings as “robust and surprising,
” _explain_ (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012) : “gender 
differences are modest in magnitude” but  “consistent with gender stereotypes, 
and replicable across cultures.” Some  examples are: 
    *   Universally, men rank substantially higher in  assertiveness and 
women much higher in nurturance.  
    *   Women are more communicative and relational  while men are more 
action oriented and mechanical.  
    *   Women are more likely to exhibit fearful  emotions and anxious 
concern as well as desires to improve family situations  and conditions.  
    *   Men are typically more adventurous, excited,  and willing to take 
risks and move out into new areas. They are also more  overtly influential in 
terms of leadership.  
    *   Women are consistently more affectionate and  sentimental.  
    *   Women are most interested and concerned about  life events and 
situations in closer proximity to them.  
    *   Men are more likely to be interested and  concerned with events and 
situations beyond the village.  
    *   Where women see danger and concern, men see  challenges.
Specific to our interest here, there are strong  and consistent findings 
pertaining to vocational interests, as Cambridge’s  Baron-Cohen noted: men are 
more likely engaged in investigative, explorative,  and building interests, 
while women rank higher in a variety of artistic,  care-giving, and 
relational interests. Men tend to like tobuild things. Women tend to like to 
things. The seemingly subtle  differences between these are easily understood 
by most men and women. While the  customer populations at Home Depot and 
Hobby Lobby are certainly not  gender-segregated, no one is surprised by or 
troubled that they certainly are  heavily gender-weighted by the mere 
interests of the shoppers. 
Consider children and toys. From very  early ages, boys and girls develop 
their play differently, naturally gravitating  toward and away from certain 
toys and no amount of idealistic parental  re-engineering has had much 
success at changing this. The people at Lego wanted  to find out why 90 percent 
their customers were boys. Like Google, they  thought it was merely a 
factor of advertising and availability. They found girls  had little interest 
playing with their product. So they created something  else: Lego Friends. 
Not only are they advertised as being  relational—“Friends”—but they have 
lots of domesticity, bright shades of pink,  hair salons, supermarkets, 
kitties and flowers. They have been extremely  successful. Girls love them even 
though many adults are _bent out of shape_ 
-legos)  that  girls would react to them so positively. They were equally 
peeved when the Lego  Friends “Research Institute” science lab for girls was 
_discontinued_ (https://shop.lego.com/en-US/Research-Institute-21110) . No 
Yale’s Alan Feingold is one of the early  scholars to survey and summarize 
the growing body of research on gender-distinct  personality differences 
across diverse cultures. He explains that these  consistent gender differences 
have _remained largely consistent_ 
(http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-09434-001)  both through generations and 
across  nations, indicating “a strong 
biological basis” rather than mere social  construction. 
_Another study_ (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-01818-009)  in  
evolutionary psychology took an interesting turn. In collecting data throughout 
cultures on six continents, the main researchers wanted to examinehow the 
male and female data collectors themselves differed in  their work. 
Even though there was an objectiveness and form  to the data being 
collected, the female data-collectors were less critical of  their subjects and 
likely to describe them in positive ways. The women  focused and reported 
more on positive personality qualities like gregariousness,  warmth, 
trustworthiness, and altruism. These, according to theory, reflect a  greater 
relational interest among women. The men were more focused on the facts  of 
the task at hand—with very little intuitive and descriptive perception  
about the people being interviewed. 
Following is a quick run-down of many  curious, more esoteric, lesser known 
male/female differences documented across  cultures in this research 
literature. The important and ground-breaking _study_ 
-168-2008.pdf)  reporting these results was cited in  the Google memo. 
    *   Women tend to smile more often than  men.  
    *   Both men and women prefer to look at  female bodies rather than 
male bodies.  
    *   Women focus more on their appearance than  men.  
    *   Women tend to be more positive in their  assessments of other 
people than are men.  
    *   Females make up more than 90 percent of all  anorexia and bulimia 
    *   Men have greater self-confidence about their  appearance regardless 
of what others think of the way they look.  
    *   Women tend to overestimate males’ preference  for slender females; 
men’s ideal female body shape is heavier than what women  assume it is.  
    *   Females attempt suicide more often than  males.  
    *   Males succeed at suicide far more often than  females.  
    *   Male suicides are far more violent than  females’.  
    *   Being a parent reduces suicide attempts by  women more than it does 
    *   Men are more likely to commit suicide at the  loss of a job or 
serious financial problems.  
    *   Boys tend to have higher athletic confidence  and self-esteem than 
    *   Generally, girls tend to perform better  academically and receive 
better grades than boys, but their academic  self-esteem is similar.  
    *   Men are generally more assertive, more  inclined to take chances, 
and more open to ideas.  
    *   Women are more tender-minded, agreeable,  warm, and open to 
    *   Women tend to be more self-critical of their  abilities, but more 
generally conscientious.  
    *   As children, girls play in smaller social  groups that are more 
emotionally intimate.  
    *   Adolescent girls are more expressive in their  relationships than 
    *   Adult women report that their friendships  involve greater 
communication and exchange of thoughts and feelings than men  report of their 
    *   Adolescent girls’ relationships are more  unstably dynamic, and 
they show greater retaliation when relationships end  than boys do.  
    *   Girls generally have higher behavioral and  moral self-esteem than 
    *   Women tend to show higher levels of  life-satisfaction compared to 
    *   Boys are more likely to express emotional  problems externally by 
actions; girls are more likely to express their  emotional problems 
    *   Women tend to be more tender-minded,  trusting, gregarious, and 
disappointed by broken promises than  men.
Some of these measures—such as physical  appearance and athletics for boys 
and ethical consideration for girls—were _double for one gender_ 
6cdc8.pdf)  than for the other. 
When Sexes Are Free to Be
The Google memo correctly referenced some  specific research that is 
counterintuitive to the 21st-century mind. It appears  that when they enjoy 
greater freedom—financially, politically and culturally—men  become more 
stereotypically masculine and women more stereotypically feminine.  This is, 
however, more true for women. 
The New  York Times _summarized_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09tier.html)  the  findings of 
personality tests in more than 60 different 
countries and cultures:  “It looks as if personality differences between men 
and women are smaller in  traditional cultures like India’s or Zimbabwe’s 
than in the Netherlands or the  United States.” The New  York Times 
concludes: “The more Venus and Mars  have equal rights and similar jobs, the 
their personalities seem to  diverge.” 
This _research_ 
  was led  by David P. Schmitt, director of the 
International Sexuality Description  Project. He observes that as wealthy 
modern nations remove the old barriers  between men and women, it appears that “
some ancient internal differences are  being revived.” When men and women 
have the opportunity—provided by greater  education, financial resources, and 
political and cultural freedom—to move  beyond traditional gender 
expectations and roles to become whatever they want to  be, they actually 
become even 
more distinctly masculine or feminine, if even in  some seemingly 
non-traditional ways. It’s why actual androgyny is not a winning  line in 
As well, the New York Times reported that gender differences in  
personalities were greater across the more gender-equitable North America and  
than across the less gender-equitable Asia and Africa. Earlier research  in 
_2001_ (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012)  and as  early as 
_1990_ (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/sex-and-psyche/book3027) arrived at 
essentially the same conclusion. 
These findings compelled professor  Schmitt to _conclude_ 
(http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-19165-013) : “An accumulating body of 
evidence, including 
the  current data, provides reason to question social role explanations of 
gender and  personality development.” He is not the only one who questions 
the orthodoxy of  the social construction assumption. 
Social Construction and  Nature/Biology
It is the popular orthodoxy of the day that if  any real differences 
between male and female exist beyond the bedroom and  bathroom, it is because 
misguided and antiquated social construction. But it  is interesting to note 
how robustly science raises serious questions about the  orthodoxy of 
social-construction gender theory. 
In the mid-1970s, psychology professor  Lois Hoffman boldly proclaimed, “
Adult sex roles are converging, and therefore  sex differences among children 
and future generations of adults can be expected  to diminish.” Contrast her 
statement with a 2001 finding from a _major literature survey_ 
(http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675530?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)  on 
sex-typing (the 
way that gender  difference is understood and exhibited), which found: 
Taken overall, a substantial body of research  reveals a very clear 
picture: in spite of widespread expectations and desires,  the various aspects 
gender differentiation are not disappearing, if  anything there is an 
increase in sex-typing, especially with the  pattern most expected to decline, 
femininity of females. (emphasis  added)
The researchers conclude, “There is no evidence  of change toward a 
moreandrogynous  personality for either sex” especially among women. Women like 
being  women. 
The consistency in differences—and the kinds of  differences—in males and 
females as evidenced in cross-cultural studies provides  strong support that 
these “stereotypes” of male and female are more deeply  rooted in biology 
than in culture. As the study just cited found, “the findings  of this and 
other research … are notconsistent  with the sociocultural explanation of 
gender difference.” 
More recent investigations _report the same_ 
 : “The 
weight of the empirical evidence, including  cross-cultural findings by 
researchers who have no vested interest in any  particular theoretical stance, 
robustly confirms these evolutionary-based  predictions” over social 
construction. As well, “These findings are difficult to  reconcile with the 
similarities hypothesis.” 
Damore wasn’t making stuff up to fit his own  baseless presuppositions. 
Just the opposite. The overwhelming weight of science  falls to his side, and 
solidly so. His name-calling detractors are truly the  unenlightened ones. 
And it really comes down to this. As women’s  opportunities open up in 
society, they are choosing the jobs and educations they  desire. This is why 
women are excelling both in attendance and graduation in  higher education over 
men. They’re rockin’ it. It’s also why they are not  choosing careers in 
the STEM fields at anywhere near the same rates as their  male peers. 
They are simply choosing the fields that  interest them and are making 
vital contributions to the market and society  there. It seemed like this is 
what female empowerment was supposed to be about,  and women certainly don’t 
need do-gooder authoritarians telling them what kind  of careers and education 
they should be choosing based on some ideological  agenda. That’s the 
opposite of empowerment. Let women be  women.

Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • [RC] Wh... BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community

Reply via email to