Key paragraphs from Dr Geoffrey Miller's response to the Google Fail caused by the 10 page letter from James Damore

Dr Miller writes the following which pretty well sums up the blind allegiance to diversity "theory" that is not established in scientific research.

The high empathizers in HR and the diversity industry prioritize caring for women and minorities over developing internally coherent, evidence-based models of human nature and society

High systematizers, such as this memo’s author, prioritize the opposite. Indeed, he explicitly calls for ‘de-emphasizing empathy’ and ‘de-moralizing diversity’, arguing that ‘being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts’. He is right

**His most important suggestion though is apparently the most contentious: ‘Be open about the science of human nature’. He writes ‘Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.’

** This is also correct. If American businesses want to remain competitive in a global market, they must open their eyes to the research, and ground their policies in the known facts about the genetic evolution of sex differences, rather than blank slate delusions about the ‘social construction of gender

Article: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Also INTERESTING TO NOTE: Google's Diversity VP has NO SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS, or even a degree in diversity, psychology, or any related fields.

Even more to the point is this statement about neuroscience of the brain by Dr Debra Soh

Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at