Alan Light
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

I’m something of a generalist (you might say that this is my specialty) so this is going beyond my field of expertise, but I do agree that environment is important. From what I’ve heard, current thinking is that genetics and environment are about equally important — though of course this presupposes that we are talking about roughly equal organisms such as human beings to begin with. (Compared to, say, a rock, a human being’s genetics account for about 100% of the difference in intelligence.)

But one doesn’t have to be an expert in genetics to understand the basics, and most of the rest follows from the basics — and the basics should make it very clear that there is a point beyond which an improved environment is not going to be much help, and that there are actual, real differences in capacities and preferences. The rest follows, and does not change the fact that it is reprehensible to disrespect or demean an individual on account of any innocuous class (such as sex/race/nationality/sexual orientation, but not the “mass murderer” class) to which they belong, whether that class is in the minority or the majority.

And I don’t believe the author of the memo disrespected or demeaned anyone. In fact, he circulated this first with the diversity office in the hopes of finding more effective and ethical ways to increase the number of women working at Google, based on the best available biological knowledge. Acknowledging that perfect 50/50 representation in a field is perhaps neither possible nor desirable is a far cry from antipathy towards women. In the sense of respecting the choices that women make it is in fact far more respectful than the official company policy.

    Alan Light

    Written by