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

291–300 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#291

Post by MR_FEET »

jazzyk wrote: post #258
edynoid wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

or the sinking of the maine

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#292

Post by beaconstudios »

elevenfist wrote: post #187
intern4tional wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's most likely referencing his next two lines down, "As part of Google's mandatory diversity training, one is presented with Google's internal research claiming that unconscious bias is real and measurable, and that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance. Google has a line which they feel is backed by research..." so he can't post that data publicly as it is Google's private research.…

> "... that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance." This is a well-known, well-researched fact of organizational psychology. Are you guys really this stupid? Think about it from a problem-solving perspective, in terms of the solutions individuals and groups will come up with. Sexism, racism, and discrimination in general doesn't benefit anyone but the wealthiest few, and only if they're…

then you're arguing for diversity of opinion or viewpoint, rather than gender or skin colour? Because that's the opposite of the approach google is taking here.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#293

Post by palra »

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...

That's almost a word-for-word restatement of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay in A Critique of Pure Tolerance, which is essentially stating that Tolerance is only a great good so long as it means tolerance for Marxist ideas and that no leftwingers should ever be tolerant towards rightwing views.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#294

Post by morgtheborg »

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.

Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like.

And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way.

Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#295

Post by sebastos »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #182
sebastos wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SUCH AS? Jesus Christ.

1. He boils down the sides do absurd minimal values that understandably cause offense. He calls the people the "left" support as "weak" and says the left worldview prefers an "unstable" approach. 2. He jumps directly into generalizations about men and women. THe subject has hardly been breached at this point and he's already stirring discomfort among any readers for whom his generalizations do not hold. 3. He says th…

"Support of the weak" and "neurotic" are being used in their technical sense though, as rough axes upon which people can lie. It's not normative, it's descriptive.

I don't really know if your #3 is true or not (this isn't the hill I die on), but I don't think it's heresy to suggest it might be. Is that really so impossible as to be an absurdism?

Obviously some of the things he's saying are generalization, but that's hardly a coherent criticism in this context - everything we're talking about on this topic is, by its very nature, generalization. We're saying fewer women than men take jobs in the computer science sector _in general_. If you're trying to look at broad trends it's okay to talk about averages. Real scientists don't need to preface every single statistic with a huge preamble reminding the reader that individual samples are not the same thing as the distribution they are drawn from.

The silly thing is I actually agree that this was a useless move to try and 'educate' the whole company. But saying he was being unscientific is garbage. He's being perfectly coherent and scientific, it was just a fairly rude thing to blast out to a company as large as Google.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#296

Post by beaconstudios »

uncletaco wrote: post #139
tedmiston wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). Minority viewpoints in tech become silenced and their author(s) ostracized by the biases of a mob mentality. It doesn't even matter what you write because most people won't even read the original source, instead floating by on derivative tweets and ext…

> Irrespective of the original memo, and this is something I've felt more strongly in the past couple years, it's just not safe to share dissenting viewpoints in tech anymore. It is not safe to share your viewpoints anywhere where it is not considered germane: and the workplace is high on that list. A firm will fire someone who becomes annoyingly political or who makes a public ass out of themselves on social media.…

part of the problem is that the organisations themselves have become extremely political. Google is known to be a very left-leaning company and I can imagine that working inside such a political organisation, especially one that talks a big talk about being logic and reason-driven, would cause one to want to express their views.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#297

Post by camgunz »

morgtheborg wrote: post #294
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.

Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultur…

> Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men.

Women aren't the problem in this scenario.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#298

Post by morgtheborg »

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 agree with you the reaction is insane.

But "polite memo" is not how anyone I know would describe this.

Conclusions, particularly conclusions on sensitive subjects, baldly stated without a bunch of qualifiers don't tend to be considered polite.

Sucks, but there it is.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#299

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

sebastos wrote: post #295
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. He boils down the sides do absurd minimal values that understandably cause offense. He calls the people the "left" support as "weak" and says the left worldview prefers an "unstable" approach. 2. He jumps directly into generalizations about men and women. THe subject has hardly been breached at this point and he's already stirring discomfort among any readers for whom his generalizations do not hold. 3. He says th…

"Support of the weak" and "neurotic" are being used in their technical sense though, as rough axes upon which people can lie. It's not normative, it's descriptive. I don't really know if your #3 is true or not (this isn't the hill I die on), but I don't think it's heresy to suggest it might be. Is that really so impossible as to be an absurdism? Obviously some of the things he's saying are generalization, but that's…

The use of these "technical" terms may be appropriate if it were presented in a different context. There are several examples of this document definitely being inappropriate (ones you did not refute), which exacerbates what could otherwise be benine use of technical terminology. To the reader who's already seen several remarks out of line, remarks like "nerotic" seem that much worse.

A perfectly choerent and scientific paper would include references for the points it tries to make. Many people have tried to retroactively justify his "points" with links to Wikipedia articles, but it should be proactively justified in the document with links to scholarly articles. Not doing so makes it difficult to believe that he's writing about anything other than his own cognative biases. "Real" scientists also go through peer review, when their peers might say "this makes you come across like a bit of a dick" before it's published for broader review. "Real scientists" have lots more discipline than this guy, and if he had taken a "real" scientist's approach he would have probably been a lot better off.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#300

Post by Balgair »

asdfologist wrote: post #280
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.

I mean, maybe yeah. But companies aren't there to hold writing workshops and poetry slams. They are there to make dollars. Or at least that is what their shareholders think. That stuff is for your knitting circle or brewing bash, maybe for a Univ. class even, but not for work at a private company. Legally a company can fire/hire in CA on a whim. Morally? I don't know, but I think that you should know not to talk about super inflammatory stuff in company wide emails/group-chats/etc by about 8th grade.
Post reply on HN