Getting to work on diversity at Google

#1 was not an "embedded an unexamined assumption", it was the explicit condition of the stated conditional. ("If they have reasons to prefer a diverse workforce...")

#2 is, insofar as it appears to be an "embedded and unexamined assumption", simply a result of brevity in omitting "...insofar as doing so is practical without costs that make it a net loss" at the end. Obvious qualification is obvious.

> I would also question the premise of the posting, that "diversity" in terms of race and sex is a highly desirable thing.

"Desirable" is subjective. Google expressly claims to value that kind of diversity. Obviously, you might have different values, which, to the extent that the means you choose to pursue them are not themselves illegal, you are free to pursue in your own company.

> The evidence for this is very thin

The evidence is actually very strong that its a thing that some people value independently of whether it contributes to any other thing that they value.

Not at all interesting- that's how it is most places I've seen. All the upper middle class white people who like the 'romance' of tech but don't want to do low status/high effort things like programming go straight into management.

Yes. It is kind of like theater. You need to perform how progressive you are!

I see a lot of people make claims like this, or even stronger ones such as claiming it has little/nothing to do with environment. Charts like this bear that out somewhat with the poorest Asian and white students scoring higher on the SATs than well to do blacks: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1a52vkpjans/UmjAc5fGxtI/AAAAAAAAA6...

Generally, people I see who bring this up are usually using it as a thin veneer over racist beliefs. When asked what end discussing minority IQ serves, they usually suggest defunding inner-city (read: black) schools or similar measures.

I can't get on board with that. I think the US certainly fails at providing equality of opportunity to many groups, and there is still widespread discrimination against women and minorities. We can certainly do better and we should view people individually rather than treating them in a prejudiced way based on group membership.

I also have a hard time getting on board with a "blank slate" view of humanity. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong so I could fire back at "race realist" reddit commenters, but it seems plausible to me that different groups, especially men and women, are biologically predisposed to certain traits, on average.

I know in my career that requires both a certain amount of aggressiveness and quantitative aptitude that my colleagues have overwhelmingly been Asian or white men. I've worked with women and "under-represented minorities" who've made me feel like a chump trading, and I certainly don't harbor prejudices about them, but they're difficult to find.

It's the only one I'm aware of that has been shown to have any statistically significant link with sprint performance. It's discovery is comparatively recent though (I think 2003?). It is extremely likely there are other genes that contribute too.

Sure, we know there are lots of things we don't know yet. But we do know generally in almost every case every ethnic group has individuals whose genetic makeup overlaps with those from other ethnic groups.

It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?

My point is that there is a lot more involved in sprinting (and high-performance generally) than just genetics.

One of the best examples of this is the cross country skier Eero Mäntyranta[1]. His family carries a genetic mutation called Polycythemia[2] which means they produce a very high proportion of red blood cells (basically like the EPO doping Lance Armstrong did, but natural).

Juvonen described lab-testing samples of Eero’s bone marrow cells, which produce red blood cells. The plan was to add EPO to the cells and track the creation of red blood cells. A typical human’s bone marrow cells won’t start making blood cells in the lab until EPO is added. But Eero’s bone marrow cells began the process of creating red blood cells before Juvonen could even stimulate them with EPO. Whatever tiny speck of EPO that was already in the sample was enough to keep the red cell factories humming. Eero’s body was hypersensitive to even trifling traces of EPO.[3]

He was a very successful cross country skier (Olympics: 3 Gold, 2 Silver & 2 Bronze over 3 games), but he was still beatable, even with this unprecedented genetic advantage.

A quote from [3]:

This is why any sensible person, in response to the questions: “Is there a genetic test for performance? Is there a performance gene?”, can only ever answer “No, it’s too complex to reduce to a single gene, and tests cannot assess this level of complexity. Yet”.

Mäntyranta is about as close as it gets to that. However, despite that, I want to point out that even with this mutation, one which saw his hemoglobin levels increase by around 50% compared to the typical male, he still didn’t wipe the floor with everyone, every time. Yes, he dominated his events in unmatched fashion in 1964, but he still got beaten, and that single mutation did not confer invincibility, only advantage. That’s again an illustration that performance is multi-factorial, and it suggests that many other factors are responsible.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_M%C3%A4ntyranta

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_erythrocytosis

[3] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/12/eero-mantyranta-finl...