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

271–280 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#271

Post by unityByFreedom »

pokemongoaway wrote: post #238
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…

It seems that your whole comment doesn't work if you don't mischaracterize the whole situation. Please quote the original racism and/or misogyny. And yes, someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who…

> someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think?

I think a more direct parallel here would be if you cited such research, and then drew the conclusion that IQ translates directly into better performance in a specific role such as leadership.

The memo author made claims that aren't supported by the research he cites. It isn't a mischaracterization to say he questioned the aptitude of women in certain roles without having the science to back it up. That's a problem -- not a legal one, but a "how to work well with others" one.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#272

Post by benchaney »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #196

Many here seem to feel sorry for the fired employee. We don't need to tolerate intolerance. Nobody cries for the Nazis, for example. "Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact." [1] [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

The fired employee was not begin intolerant. He was disagreeing with company policy. The comparison to Nazis is completely uncalled for.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#273

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #259
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean "men often report higher assertiveness".

OTOH, I found something completely unrelated that really left me speechless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership#...): "Women and men have been surveyed by Gallup each year concerning workplace topics, and when questioned about preferences of a female boss or a male boss, women chose a preference for a male boss 39% of the time, compared to 26% of men displaying preference for a male boss. Only 27% of females would prefer a boss of the same gender.[17][18] This preference, among both sexes, for male leadership in the workplace has continued unabated for sixty years, according to the survey results."

Now, how should we call these people?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#274

Post by josteink »

orbitur wrote: post #253
trosi wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He had sources from here to the moon.

Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#275

Post by jmagoon »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #81
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #18

Wow, I'm surprised to see the comments here being hateful towards this statement. I don't think it's contradictory at all. The stance he takes is that any subject is up for debate, so long as you don't step out of line with respect to the code of conduct. The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. Even as a particularly opinionated person myself, who would be…

> The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. What did the author say that was "out of line"? Can you please cite a section of the essay and explain? Note: Please see this response to the memo from four scientists who study the field of psychology: http://archive.is/z6xxP The reason given by Google for the author's termination was "advancing harmful gender ster…

You clearly have an axe to grind, since you've posted the same links and research at three times in this comment chain. Every single time you leave out this quote, also from the first article:

>But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#276

Post by edynoid »

davidreiss wrote: post #245
edynoid wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship", that has become popular recently. Let me elaborate a little… When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. It means actively suppressing certain kinds of information from being distributed. What is happening…

> This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship" I'm not right-wing, whatever that means nowadays. I'm what you would call a liberal from NY. > When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. Really? So if google blocks all lgbt content, it wouldn't be cens…

The "right-wing" categorization is probably not that helpful, I agree.

If I understand you correctly, by turning the argument around (against LGBT, atheist, liberal, etc. people) you want to challenge my point that it is okay to criticize and resist certain opinions and draw consequences from them.

I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of people.

You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job. Do you think this is equal to being tracked down and killed by police? That's what e.g. LGBT people face in some countries, is that what you mean by that?

From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote, that might have harmed many people. Of course, this harm is not as visible as being fired, but it does hurt the opportunities for women, who have to try twice as hard in an environment, where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job.

On the other hand, following your example with the guy making pro-LGBT statements: you make it sound like LGBT is some sort of political agenda by itself. But people usually just _are_ lesbian or trans without making a huge fuss out of it… I do not see how this compares to writing a 10-page essay systematically attacking half of your co-workers.

And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#277

Post by josteink »

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'm sorry, what have our society and companies become?

Afraid of angry, vocal and hysterical internet lynch mobs on social media.

Whoever is most easily offended and cries loudest gets to decide.

Being actually right, or god forbid principled, is clearly a thing of the past.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#278

Post by joshuamorton »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #180
xenadu02 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was only ever true in online discussion forums, Usenet, etc. I agree that there is a lot of mob mentality going on, it’s just difficult to get upset about this case because the original author was spouting debunked “biotruth” arguments. Twitter replies are mostly full of men who didn’t read the original memo or who are willfully pretending it didn’t claim women are less biologically suited to being engineers. I…

> the original author was spouting debunked “biotruth” arguments C.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956592 , where an actual scientist is quoted to say "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." See also http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... for plenty of good references on the topic. But general…

I think the best way to summarize the memo is that he quotes a bunch of science, which is true.

He also makes a bunch of unfounded claims that aren't really related to the science. And people argue that because he said a bunch of sciency things that scientists agree are correct, that everything he said was true.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#279

Post by xiaosun »

cynicalkane wrote: post #128
koolba wrote: post #5

Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) . They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings,…

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…

What about the google employees who publicly called for the author to be fired (e.g. on twitter/social media)? Shouldn't these actions also be considered in violation of their Code of Conduct - those actions seem to fit the description of "harassment" and "intimidation".

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#280

Post by asdfologist »

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…

No, the company should critique the hell out of his memo and explain logically why it's wrong.
Post reply on HN