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

341–350 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#341

Post by oddlyaromatic »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #121
oddlyaromatic wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct. I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is appropriate for working professionally with a g…

Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well? It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free. Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry-cleaning amenities on campus. If that's the di…

Generally I think people who are basically compelled to spend time together should use company policies, and their own judgement, to figure out what's professionally acceptable in context and work in reference to that. I don't agree with how home/work lines are often blurred and I see nothing wrong with opinions being shared at work, except the naive expectation that one has the right to say anything at all and, if it's "just an opinion", experience no consequences. It's just basic professionalism. In the real world outside of work, people can express all ranges of opinions (well, most), and others can choose to react, or not. Others can even choose to just not deal with you if they don't like your opinion (again, mostly). At work, you have a complicated long term contractual and financial relationship to the employer and other employees. It's appropriate for people to come into that with some self awareness and caution about what to say, and to whom.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#342

Post by dopamean »

bostonvaulter2 wrote: post #333
dopamean wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily tow…

You've said many things about what you don't believe and what you don't agree with. What of the memo (if any) do you agree with and what do you actually believe about how companies should approach diversity?

I don't think what I believe about the memo matters. I just wanted to hear what people had to say with regards to being inclusive of people with ideas they don't agree with. Judging by how few responses I got that even attempted to answer that question I'm going to guess that many people aren't interested in being inclusive of people with dissenting opinions that they find offensive.

In the interest of answering part of your question (since I just complained about how few answered mine) I'll say that I do think there is a role for companies to play when it comes to diversity. I'd love to see companies get involved much earlier than when it comes time to hire. Because I believe the problem is with the pipeline I think that if companies want to address the problem then they should start where the pipeline starts: early education. If Google is more interested in getting more women involved in tech I would support the idea of Google hosting a summer camp for girls at their HQ. Or funding programs to do those kinds of things in other places in the country. Of course I have no idea if this kind of thing would work and it would require patience (years) to see if it would pay off. But it seems like a good place to start.

I haven't really thought a ton about how to solve the pipeline problem but it seems obvious that you'd start at the beginning rather than the end. Perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#343

Post by dopamean »

muninn_ wrote: post #336
dopamean wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily tow…

One thing i have been curious about is why women don't find jobs like construction, or plumbing or electrical work appearing. Any thoughts?

My thoughts wouldn't amount to anything more than a layman's understanding of pop psychology which I don't think adds anything useful to the conversation.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#344

Post by threatofrain »

soundwave106 wrote: post #255
johnsea wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue that IQ tests don't measure every single aspect of human intelligence, it's interested in one specific construct, if it exists -- g, which stands for a general capability. IQ is a test made for humans, but the concept of g is far more general than humans, and applies to machines as well.

When Google's AlphaGo beat some famous champions, people were wondering whether Google's program was merely a Go-specific program, or a more general program that learned to play Go.

I would also argue that if you went out and created another test for IQ, it would likely have high iter-rater reliability with IQ, but maybe have rough edges and have less empirical attention than mainstream tests like Ravens Matrices. That has been the history of people trying to make a name for themselves by making another intelligence construct, only to find it has insufficient distinction from IQ.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#345

Post by doubleshame »

doubleshame wrote: post #265
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...

Only three sith deal in absolutes.

Actually this could be a single sith as well.

Also you don't normally get more than two, so there's that.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#346

Post by Aunche »

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…

Even if what the author stated was wrong, it's absurd to suggest that misrepresenting a few studies about gender differences is equivalent to harassment. Humans aren't so fragile that they can't ignore the politically incorrect opinions of a coworker.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#347

Post by puranjay »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #251
puranjay wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your own link talks about how the drink was boycotted across campuses.

But you can't bring up the Apartheid and not dig through a huge history of companies, countries and people explicity or implicitly supporting it.

Doesn't justify anything of course but Coca-Cola wasn't the only company doing it

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#348

Post by scarmig »

morgtheborg wrote: post #298
johnsea wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Polite" does not mean decorating every single sentence you write with a pile of qualifiers.

It was a badly structured and badly argued document, and I disagree with most of its factual claims and its policy recommendations. But it in no way was impolite or in violation of Google's code of conduct, unless you think that having that viewpoint inherently makes you in violation and deserving of excommunication.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#349

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

pgodzin wrote: post #247
IshKebab wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would he have gone too far to suggest that women are inherently physically weaker than men? Or that they are inherently longer-lived than men? What about that they are inherently less interested in football?

Probably, because longer-lived and interest in football are not inherent biologically. A male baby is not born interested in football, it is socialized. Men work more dangerous jobs and are socialized into more unhealthy behaviors, diets, etc that can result in lower lifespan than women.

Testosterone has a direct, measurable effect on competitiveness and aggressiveness. Why wouldn't you think this would affect the overall sports preference between the sexes? In an environment where men have significantly higher testosterone than women, wouldn't there naturally be more men than women in an aggressive sport like football? Would you expect a 50% gender parity in such an environment?

Culture plays an effect, but we really need to realize that biology probably pays a role too, and potentially affects gender parities in many careers.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#350

Post by morgtheborg »

scarmig wrote: post #348
morgtheborg wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Polite" does not mean decorating every single sentence you write with a pile of qualifiers. It was a badly structured and badly argued document, and I disagree with most of its factual claims and its policy recommendations. But it in no way was impolite or in violation of Google's code of conduct, unless you think that having that viewpoint inherently makes you in violation and deserving of excommunication.

> in no way was impolite

The reality is impolite is in the eye of the beholder (or culture). And in the Bay Area, that would be considered an impolite way of communicating considering the topic.

I'm not applying a value judgement here.

Post reply on HN