As long as ultra-liberals make views like in this essay taboo to express, then these ideas will simply be driven under ground, and people who hold those views will just feel unfairly suppressed. I think it’s a problem that people who hold these views feel the need to express them anonymously, because they know that the reaction will just be one of unmitigated vitriol. Seriously, if that Google employee openly expressed those views, they would just be fired.

Now that this anonymous essay is out, this is an opportunity to critique it carefully. For instance, there are indeed lots of people who think that men and women and people of difference “races” have such significantly different intelligences that it’s okay to utilize stereotypes as part of hiring decisions and such. Well, now we can take this opportunity to revisit the scientific evidence. Surely there ARE differences, but what differences are genetic, and what are the result of culture and socialization? And for any of these differences, what impact do they have (statistically) on engineering talent? And how much does “talent” matter when combined with hard-earned skills?

We do not want to turn gender and racial equality into dogma. First, we should be completely honest and open about scientific research on this matter. Let’s say it became taboo to talk about skin color. Then if you really liked the skin tone of some person of African descent, then you might risk backlash from just complementing someone. Or more neutrally, if you’re trying to make someone look really good in their clothing, then we need the ability to be matter-of-fact about it; the color of your skin, hair, and eyes and the shape of your body do have a real impact on what clothing styles are best for you. Or biologically, it’s important to recognize the relationship between melanin content and sun exposure.

But establishing that diferences do exist an it’s okay to talk about them, what impact do those differences have on things like job effectiveness? Let’s say we unfroze a population of early humans from 500K years ago. They were not quite as intellectually advanced as us, but they had language and other characteristics that we would recognize as human. How should the be treated? Should they be enslaved? Or just relegated to the menial jobs? What if one wanted to study engineering—should we stop them? Why? And what harm would it cause you if one of them went to college, got a degree, and got hired? White men vary in engieering talent VASTLY and are not hired on the basis of simply being white men, so why should a woman, a black man, or a Neanderthal be excluded simply on the basis of one of these labels? And why the hell would you care to try to force people to be judged on those bases?

Although I haven’t met any neanderthals, I have met people with mental disabilities who were capable enough at math and engineering skills that they could hold down an engineering job and be *productive*, without “special treatment.” And of course, I have known lots of downright brilliant people who were female and/or with skin color darker than a norwegian. Are they less common than brilliant white men? If so, that’s interesting for the anthropologists, but not something that HR people should worry themselves with. BESIDES, even if there were some genetic bias that made them “10% less likely to be at skill level Z,” or something like that, the artificial prejudices from our society’s past have a FAR greater impact. We have a long way to go to get those people up to parity with their true underlying abilities. And the longer we take to do that, the longer we keep shooting ourselves in the foot for not benefitting from their ability to contribute.

I believe a lot of the criticism that women and minorities face often comes from confirmation bias. People make mistakes in their jobs or are sloppy. For some reason, when white men make mistakes, they're more likely to be forgiven because "they're overworked" or whatever. When other types of people make the SAME MISTAKES, they get slammed for incompetence. You can tell me all you want about women and blacks who "abuse the system," and I'll remind you of people like Martin Shkreli and half the other white men out there sociopathic enough to want to run a pharma company. White men have their fair share of assholes and lazy people. Those people under a microscope have to work harder and make fewer mistakes, just to survive.

We also have an opportunity to learn about statistics. Let’s say we have some numbers that tell us that blue people are 10% better at job X than green people. What does that even mean? Does that mean 100% of the time, blue people are 10% more effective? Since when have employers hired only people with the same level of effectiveness? In any case, this is unlikely. Most things conform to normal (Gaussian) distributions, so it probably means that the mean of all blue people’s metric is 10% higher than the mean of all green people’s metric. In that case, it might mean something like 60% of blue people are better than 50% of green people, which conversely implies that 40% of green people are better than 50% of blue people. Well, if you’re looking for talent, you really don’t want to miss out on that 40% of green people!

So, here’s a take way for you: The next time someone tries to argue that certain people are fundamentally inferior, so not react with anger. Ask them how they know this. Be prepared with counter examples and solid scientific data. Educate yourself so that you can educate others (without being condescending). It’s also very important to listen to views you don’t agree with, as a way to open up the door to share what you know, to challenge your own preconceived notions, and to learn something you didn’t already know. If someone starts expressing taboo ideas (e.g. ones that are sexist), if you immediately label that person as fundamentally flawed for their ideology and you shut them out, then you become no better than they are for wanting to shut someone out for being a woman.

Yes, since the early and mid 20th century, a lot has been learned about women and minorities that has taught us to evaluate people as individuals, not as labeled groups. BUT not everyone has learned this. Schools and parents don’t teach some things, and kids don’t pay attention to everything taught in school. If your reaction to “bad” ideas is to lash out emotionally, they’re just going to recognize you as the asshole that you are and not learn anything at all. We ALL have gaps in our knowledge, so humble yourself by reminding yourself of some of your gaps before you open your mouth. And something else to keep in mind is that surely there are many things that we have “learned” from the civil rights revolution that are not entirely scientific or ethically—take someone’s “ignorant and outdated” ideas as an opportunity to make sure that you are truly correct about what you think you know.

I find it frustrating that people on different sides of the political spectrum demonize each other. I am a liberal, but I have some very intelligent friends who are conservative. They are not bible-thumping creationists or unwilling to listen to scientific data. They just have different values and priorities. In fact, it is common on both sides to have people who will tell you that the facts are the facts, and the facts don’t care what your opinions or feelings are. They may emphasize and dismiss different facts, and nobody is going to get everything right. In fact, it is open and honest DEBATE that works best as a filter for incorrect ideas, not dogma. I do not grow as an individual unless I have people challenging my ideas! When it comes to politicians, keep in mind that most of them (right and left) are in the pocket of big companies with large lobby budgets. Hardly any of them have any kind of scientific or engineering background. There are plenty with law backgrounds (where critical thinking is also taught), but they are also taught to be able to distance themselves from the ideas they are arguing, possibly making some less likely to take a stand against what their lobbyists are pushing.

So why do the republicans currently in the US government majority doing so many crazy things? It’s not because all republicans are idiots. The left have so solidly dominated the media and government policy for so long that the political right has been completely pent up. They have felt like conservative approaches to some problems might be better, but from their perspective, they haven’t gotten those ideas listened to or tested. There is a general sense of “we could do better if only they would let us try.” Now that we have Trump in the white house and a republican majority in congress, the flood gates are open and every wild conservative political theory is being openly suggested. In truth, many of their ideas are not “wrong" so much as “untested,” while they see so many liberal ideas having been actually enacted while being equally untested. And so now, all of these ideas are being tested, and the apparent deafness of people like Ajit Pai to “public opinion” comes from his belief that “we’ve tried if your way, and it had problems, so let’s try it our way and see if it does better.” And it’s really not a bad idea to actually put “radical” ideas to the test! I suspect a lot of what comes out of this administration is going to be a disaster, but the left has had their own share of disasters. Some of their proposals can be eliminated on the basis of solid scientific data and logic, while others are just hypotheses that nobody can prove right or wrong on the basis of what we know right now.

So far, the current political administration hasn’t started any wars. This is in large part because the US military leadership is not as trigger-happy as some would lead you to believe and exercises prudence when it comes to engaging militarily. So having this republican majority in government is a GREAT OPPORTUNITY for everyone. A lot of these “crazy” ideas that haven’t gotten tested ARE getting tested now. If they’re nuts, then they’ll be exposed as being nuts. And if there are some good ideas, then they’ve finally had the opportunity to test them out. Maybe they'll completely hang themselves, or maybe they'll do a few good things.

At the same time, we need to keep in mind that when the republicans fail, it's not because they're ignorant morons, any more than the democrats are. Democrats in the same position do not have more successes. They too have gotten their fair share of shit for their mistakes, and we need to remember that this has happened. When politicians screw up, they all deserve criticism. Regardless of political leaning, they are human and are going to make mistakes, and we should not be biased in how we interpret those failures. Some people should not be forgiven more just because they're more popular. In the end, the hope is that they will all "do a few good things."