Live data from Hacker News

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

391–400 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#391
post #346

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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#392
When I worked at Google I saw far worse things being said about those who held conservative opinions on Memegen and eng-misc. The real issue is not that he expressed opinions that could be constituted as harassment, that happens all the time at Google, the only problem is that he dared to hold the "wrong" opinion, counter to the dominant culture.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally get that. I think it's probably natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim". But I take issue with a number of things in that first sentence of yours I quoted, and your comment here to which I'm replying. I'll try and be as explicit as possible because I think one of the major duties of allies is…

If you take one sentence and dissect it then it's easy to conclude it would have been better to phrase it in a different way assuming your goal is my goal. But I was making a movement from a point made in the Google document that inspired visceral reactions and then leading FROM that point TO a more nuanced point which becomes apparent when the rest of my post is included: > And I think that's really what was missing…

I chose a single sentence because I wanted to point out how insidious stereotypical gender roles can be, and I don't think you can just pick any sentence and make it less indicting of women and more indicting of men. Try that last one if you want :)

I'm happy to get into the rest of your post which I also think is a good discussion topic:

> 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.

From a public policy perspective, you often have to deal with social problems. For example, White men are far and away the most frequent perpetrators of white-collar crime. You have two options. Option 1 is assume this is a race/gender problem because of genetics and say White men can't be in business. Option 2 is to assume that there is a different cause and try and find it. I don't know what the cause is, actually, though I'd assume it's because the vast majority of people who are even able to commit white-collar crime in the first place are White men.

The problem with the line of thinking from that Google doc is that we start going down a road where we just take Option 1 for everything. That sounds pretty bad right? Well welcome to being a woman, a person of color, or an LGBTQ person in America. Sexual harassment wasn't even a term until the 1970s, marital rape wasn't even a legal concept until the 80s. I'm a white cis straight software engineer and not once have I ever read a document questioning my ability to be such because my gender is "extremely murderous and likely unable to focus" despite the fact that men are responsible for nearly 80% of murders world wide. The document circulating at Google is just the latest from a long line of bigots trying to support the crooked chair of their opinions with any science they can shove under the short leg.

All of which is to say that I don't find your added consideration of "maybe it ISN'T genetics" to be balancing. I read your entire post as the statement of someone who has an open mind about these issues but has a lot to learn.

> Every woman is sexist. Every man is sexist.

This jumped out at me and I want to make a point about gender roles. Gender roles were created by male dominated societies, and while they're harmful to people of all genders it's important to understand that this is still a system created by men that primarily benefits men. I agree that everyone is sexist because like you said, sexism exists in every culture, but I don't want to tacitly agree that women and other genders share in the responsibility as much as men do. It's our system and before anyone else it's on us to fix it.

> Which is definitely NOT what I am trying to communicate and is > honestly offensive and not backed by data. Feel free to > reference studies if you disagree and think men are particularly > prone to respond to assertive women in the office more poorly > than other women.

That's a completely valid request:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3544188/ https://sociology.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publicati... https://granolagradschoolandgoffman.wordpress.com/2014/12/08... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425573 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0730888499026001...

Note that those are just about the incidence of sexual harassment of women in authority, which I think is clear indicator of "men have a hard time dealing with women in authority". For something a little less terrifying and maybe more topical: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167215593491.

I have a couple of points about this overall though. First, I really just Google for this stuff, and I think if you or anyone else is honestly willing to learn about gender issues then there are myriad resources. Gender studies is a legitimate academic field and smart people are doing great, important work in it.

Second, let's dial it back with the "honestly offensive". Making a comment based on stereotypes about men is not the same as making a comment based on stereotypes about women. Stereotypes about men haven't held men back for thousands of years. Stereotypes about men haven't chopped off 20% of their paychecks. It is a false equivalence, and it's what the phrase "you can't be sexist against men" is getting at. The real social ill of sexism punishes women, and while -- again -- gender roles hurt everyone, the group on the losing end of this system is pretty much always women. You may also have heard the term "derailing", where women (or people of color or other groups) are airing their grievances against our culture, and white cis straight men chime in with their grievances against them. Again, these things are not the same, and while they're definitely problems, let's be sure that we're not showing up to a discussion about metastasized cancer demanding that everyone look at our paper cut.

> We'll just have to agree to disagree. Intent is never irrelevant.

When we're talking about the challenges women face in the workplace, intent is irrelevant. For example, 1 in 4 women experiences sexual harassment in the workplace. Oftentimes men are unaware they are sexually harassing women. Their behavior is either harmless, friendliness, their idea of courtship, or something else, just not sexual harassment.

But it really doesn't matter, as in it's irrelevant, if we're discussing the experience of women in the workplace. The perspective essentially is, "I don't care what you were trying to do, your behavior is causing a severe social problem for millions of women; stop it".

Sometimes intent is relevant! Like in the law (mens rea) for example. But the sad truth of things is that gender roles have so permeated our culture that even basic interactions are problematic. A good example is complimenting a woman on her appearance in the workplace. It feels friendly! Maybe they changed hairstyles or whatever. In fact, it feels unfriendly to not say something.

But women have been judged solely on their appearance for... basically since forever. So what seems like an honest compliment actually entrenches harmful gender roles.

I'm pretty tired; I've been sick the last couple days and it looks like I'll still be at least a little sick tomorrow. So feel free to write back but I might not respond until tomorrow. Have a good night!

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#394

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.…

> Expecting firms to give their employees a forum to speak openly about anything not work related is a recent phenomenon across the board, and many still hold onto the view that if you want to engage in political discussions then do so outside of the workplace.

But Google does this (Memegen and eng-misc), the problem is that you're only able to speak about certain things and entertain certain opinions...so naturally, conservatives will feel muzzled and want to not go against the dominant culture/power structures

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#395
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When calling it a "code of conduct" does it refer to concrete actions, or just expressing opinions? Other than speech, what was the violation here? Restricting free speech by threat of firing is the solution everyone is applauding? Apparently Google is declaring an attitude in opposition to what they did: "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those…

Expressing opinions that make employees feel less adequate due to their gender is a violation of the CoC. I applaud restricting that kind of speech, as do most companies. At some companies the motivation might be strictly legal, but regardless of the motivation you're going to get fired if you open the company up to future gender discrimination lawsuits. "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics." So w…

So I'd expect every employee posting "The Future is Female" or "#YesAllMen" or something on Memegen/Eng-Misc to be fired as well...but that is not going to happen.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#397
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…

> 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

Consider this, if diversity hiring yields better individual and group performance then this implies that different races and genders perform better at certain skills, and that taken in aggregate, this leads to measurable performance increases overall at the individual and group level.

After all, if there was no difference across gender or race, then it would make no difference whether you had 100% white male or 100% asian female, or any other combination of different demographics.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#398

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…

> Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. The one Pichai cited, >> It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." > I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. He said women have a harder time leading. That's a…

> He said women have a harder time leading.

He said, in the context of Big-5 personality traits [0], that women on average skew higher for 'agreeableness' (a scientifically sound finding that has been replicated in cross-cultural studies), and that high agreeableness leads to having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

He's not saying women have a harder time at these things, he's saying people with a high agreeableness personality trait have a hard time at these things.

His very next sentence states that while women have higher agreeableness at population-level averages, it would be wrong to just look at averages between genders because there is significant overlap in these traits across genders. However because it is seen by senior management as a problem for women, men with high agreeableness are excluded from training programs designed to help people with things such as negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading, he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations (not that they lack aptitude or ability for it), and that senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it, but because these training programs are only for women, they are excluding a large portion of men with the same traits, who are then denied access to similar corrective training.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?

I did read it, where did he outline the failures of the existing diversity program that wasn't also a lie? For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing.

> For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing.

It's also not a thing that the author of the memo stated. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#400

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…

> is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ".

He mentioned this only briefly (a bracketed clause 5 words long) as an example of science that the left ignores, because there does appear to be a difference in IQ between biological sexes [0], with current research suggesting the averages are similar, however there is a higher variation among males, leading to a higher proportion of men at the very high and very low ends of the spectrum.

His comments on this were in no way used to infer one group was superior or more intelligent than the other. He was just pointing out that the left will ignore or deny science when it conflicts with ideology.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...

Post reply on HN