Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#251

Post by TeMPOraL »

puranjay wrote: post #235
TeMPOraL wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's enough "top workers" available in pretty much any kind of social/racial/gender-based group you could delineate, that even companies with explicit discrimination policies can find the talent they need. The market won't give you the solution you seek; the issue does not impact profitability enough.

A company staffed by racists will by boycotted by the majority of consumers. Its only customers will be other racists. Plus, most other companies will refuse to supply goods and services to it lest they feel the backlash of catering to racists. Not exactly a feasible venture.

Like today majority of soft drink consumers boycott Coca Cola?

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Investm...

Actual experience has proven beyond doubt that boycotts don't work, and even if a company has blood on its hand, their deeds are quickly forgotten.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#252

Post by josteink »

jryan49 wrote: post #200
cnlwsu wrote: post #150

Keep politics/religion out of work. Its one thing to rant on reddit at end of day, its another to broadcast it to co workers. What did he expect would happen? His little write up would change everyones mind? Both left/right are extremists these days and will never change. All you will do is alienate and anger a bunch of co workers for a few pats on back from "your" side. While the smart people will put heads down and…

I thought he just released it on his google+ and it became viral?

In which case you are mistaken.

It was an internal memo and was leaked. The leaker is somehow not fired.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#253

Post by orbitur »

trosi wrote: post #149
cynicalkane wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the memo: > However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of C…

You may be right, but later in the note Pichai himself writes: > ...we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct As if admitting that currently there are no avenues for open discussion on highly controversial topics such as this one or at least none that do not clash with the Code of Conduct.

You can say "the diversity program is harmful and should be stopped" without advancing gender stereotypes (which is what the guy did in his memo). All you need to do is back up that "it's harmful" with evidence.

It's pretty damn simple.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#254

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #243
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years tr…

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.

I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says:

> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue.

Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#255

Post by soundwave106 »

johnsea wrote: post #190
cynicalkane wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the memo: > However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of C…

Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men prefer working in engineering. No need to artificially increase percentage of women engineers with incentives. I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. Being fired for this polite memo? And being characterized as a kind of toxic outcast? - I'm sorry, what h…

I think the memo made two mistakes here.

The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line really carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental constructs for IQ, and the difficulty of creating a single "IQ test" that measures every single aspect of human intelligence. The quote about "IQ and sex differences" (being something the left ignored) was only supported by a link to conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (which said some things about bias in science grants, but didn't really have anything to say about IQ and sex differences).

This is the point where, to me, the memo went downhill. I am not sure it is the intention (possibly the emphasis was intended to be more the politic), but it is very easy to infer inferior / superior claims at this point, because the whole "IQ and sex differences" thing sort of came out of nowhere.

The other reason it went downhill fast, and unnecessarily so, was because the paper brought in "liberal" vs "conservative" American political dynamics elements. BIG mistake. Any discussion along this line needs to be as apolitical as possible, lest it descend rapidly into toxic left-wing vs. right-wing tribalism territory (as, well, happened). Instead of attempting to skirt around politics, loaded phrases were used, particularly at the end of the memo, like "PC authoritarian", and sourced links typically were op-ed, often with strong bias.

I agree that a lot of the memo is more some of the tribal / "role" paradigms and elements that have been discussed in many sources over time, and there's actually some interesting food for thought in it. I'm not terribly comfortable that what I see as poor communication skills led to the firing. I would not characterize this memo as "polite" though, for the above reasons.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#256

Post by ballenf »

ipsin wrote: post #222
dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

Great article. I think a better metaphor than "peace treaty" describing tolerance would be "sect", however. And not in a pejorative sense, but used to recognize that there will be various self-organized groups with different definitions of tolerance and that membership in a group requires close adherence to a particular definition. And various sects may overlap to varying degrees.

For example, a tolerant devout Christian and a tolerant devout Muslim may find themselves defining tolerance differently enough to find themselves in different tolerance "sects".

Peace treaty is an interesting metaphor but falls short on many levels. Primarily because peace treaties are more focused on geographic separation (whether country-level or block-level) and agreeing on borders (keeping people apart), not about rules of behavior within a single community. Tolerance is the latter more than the former and is the preferred alternative to separation where possible. Using examples from the article the white "separatists" want a peace treaty -- well defined border for them to live free of the "threat" of racial diversity. Tolerant people want to find a way to build a community together, but understand the other side's goals are incompatible with this.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#257

Post by lolgoogle »

unethical_ban wrote: post #146
JustAnotherPat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.” Which part did he break exactly? Bias? Seems like something that can be construed to mean basically any ideology or opinion, conservative or liberal.

I think he went too far when he suggested women are inherently less capable in the computer sciences than men. Saying diversity training sucks, or that Google should re-evaluate how they encourage diversity, or that men are getting a raw deal, would have been tolerable.

None of that would have been tolerable. He'd still have been fired. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#258

Post by jazzyk »

edynoid wrote: post #250
jazzyk wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.

For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value. After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.

So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#259

Post by unityByFreedom »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #254
unityByFreedom wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.

I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed i…

> these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced

Where? It doesn't say anything about one sex's aptitude for leading there.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#260

Post by xxSparkleSxx »

dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

What would be a better comparison is someone in the NFL saying racial diversity is stupid, black people tend to be better at sports. Stop trying to bring in Japanese and Chinese men to meet a quota.

The QB is gonna get sacked (and possibly injured) because you are using metrics that don't apply to the job to judge fitness for the job.

Post reply on HN