“Google manifesto” as case in point.

Danny Zuckerman
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

I don’t want to talk about the Google manifesto itself. I don’t want to talk about its writer. I don’t want to talk about whether his evolutionary psychology is scientifically accurate or prejudiced. Or whether his firing by Google was appropriate. Or whether the reactions against him were fair. Or what the cause of the pay gap is. All these are worthwhile topics, and all are covered in a thousand places.


I just want to mention how outrageously flawed 99% of the ‘conversations’ around this topic have been. An oversimplification of the situation:

Fact we agree on: women are paid less than men
Group A: “there is active discrimination against women!”
Group B: “there are historical and cultural factors that act to discriminate against women!”
Group C: “women are men are biologically different, with different skills and desires, which leads to different outcomes!”

All three can be true. You don’t have to dismiss A to agree with C, nor do you have to claim that any argument for C is always and automatically an instance of A. This isn’t game theory, or high school debate club. This is obvious to any 6th grader in a social studies class. But to watch debate these days it seems like nobody is able or willing to have the conversation on more than 1 factor or viewpoint at a time.


This isn’t unique to the “Google Manifesto” or to gender pay gap issues or silicon valley. Choose an issue, and it’s often the same — not a nuanced weighing of costs and benefits, but an “I’m right, you’re wrong!” Healthcare: “millions of people will die!” vs. “entitlements will sink our economy!” Guns: “it’s our right to have a defense against the state and others!” vs. “guns lead to unnecessary deaths!”

Even the age-old debate about what makes someone successful. “Hard work! I earned everything I’ve achieved!” say some. “You were born privileged, the country set up the infrastructure, and plenty of others helped you. Your success is not your own,” argue others. How crazy is it that these debates rarely admit that OF COURSE your own hard work and other external factors play a role in your success?

Some might think this is so obvious that it’s implicit. It is not. Think about the conversations you’ve had or seen like this recently: if you tried to establish that middle ground, an acceptance that both sides are partially right and it’s a matter of degree, how would that go? In most cases: you’d get attacked by both sides.

Until our debates return to the level of 6th grade social studies class, our societal debate isn’t going to be very productive.

3-Rights

Thoughts on educating, governing and opening a progressive society. Informed conservative principles and our tribal human nature we too often ignore.

Danny Zuckerman

Written by

"The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer." (Cunningham's Law) | 3Box.io

3-Rights

3-Rights

Thoughts on educating, governing and opening a progressive society. Informed conservative principles and our tribal human nature we too often ignore.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade