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

401–410 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#401

Post by nxmehta »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #191
xenadu02 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are >being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... because you clearly aren’t. James Damore didn’t bother to do any research…

> James Damore didn’t bother to do any research on the topic - I guess he just assumed his feelings were correct? Go and actually read the original memo at https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso... . Which, for this particular point, links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... and https://en.wikipedia.…

> Those are actual falsifiable statements. They can be either true or false. The whole idea of considering them as "viewpoints" is ridiculous and it's precisely what's the problem with the whole environment surrounding the discussion.

Stop it - you are being extraordinarily deceptive with statements like this. Did you actually read this memo? And I mean read it critically? Are these quotes falsifiable statements?

"These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics."

Didn't see a citation for that. Care to cite the evidence? Can we prove that this assertion is true or false?

"This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."

Would love to read your citation for anxiety leading to lower number of women in high stress jobs.

"Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them."

Again, I'd love to see some evidence showing that the desire for work life balance is the reason that men disproportionately in leadership positions in tech.

Stop pretending that just because the author has sources that his conclusions are supported. His argument was poor. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension could see that, politics be damned.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#402

Post by bostik »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #337
bostik wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In particular, as part of Google's mandatory diversity training, you're presented with Google's internal research showing that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance. Are these numbers available to public somewhere? I'm asking because I would dearly want to find comprehensive data. When I've done some of my own research, I have run into sets of studies, which all agree on one thing: mo…

Are you aware of a study that is focused on (software) engineers? The McKinsey study looks at companies' top management for its diversity metrics, but I don't really trust studies across professions. Most anecdotes I've read about the benefits of diversity boil down to "if only we'd had a on the team, we would have noticed ". But as a developer, my requirements are set by project managers (50% women in my experience)…

> Are you aware of a study that is focused on (software) engineers?

Sadly no :( - I'm fully aware that the studies in this field mostly focus on financial outcomes, and because they are commissioned by consulting/recruiting agencies, they are of course targeting the management group. That's one of the reasons I would love to see the numbers from Google's internal research.

As for this:

> Most anecdotes I've read about the benefits of diversity boil down to "if only we'd had a on the team [...]

I am not sure whether I should be offended or merely aghast. From the tone you used, it feels like you have witnessed something more akin box-ticking than strategy, cargo-culting over rationality. I know my reasons are different but I suspect they could be equally selfish.

1. In my experience, women who stay in tech tend to be pretty damn good. Even if we ignored all other factors, it would be rational from purely talent-acquisition point of view to target female engineers in hiring. In addition, women often have greater capacity for empathy and thus can become a force multiplier in practically any team.

2. Constructive arguments from different viewpoints can only make us stronger. Things I am blind to can be spotted by someone else. Things my usual peer group is blind to can be spotted by persons from different peer group(s). But most importantly - things that are obvious to people who share my background can be pointed out and questioned by people whose backgrounds are different.

The thing I, as an engineer, worry about is myopia.

> as a developer, my requirements are set by project managers (50% women in my experience)

That is an interesting observation. Do you think that is due to self-selection or external factors? Also: if PM roles can have a 50/50 gender split, does that mean that women are more likely to seek promotions that lead to PM type positions?

> Do developers in other companies or countries (Germany here) have wider responsibilities, and thus, diversity is more important?

I think it depends less on the country and more on the company [or national?] culture. In engineering driven organisations, definitely. In a rigid hierarchy with nothing-but-top-down approach, probably less so. But then again, in the light of what I know, the latter category should benefit from diversity in their upper management. Where else would the alternate viewpoints come from?

And finally, I'm going to pick this one up separately:

> Consequently, I don't find it intuitive that more diversity (of gender/ethnicity) would help my team.

I'm sorry for you. But also, I am glad that you brought this up. You have just highlighted that MY experience and view of diversity can be irrational or plain odd to someone from a different cultural environment. For that - thank you.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#403

Post by TeMPOraL »

puranjay wrote: post #347
TeMPOraL wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Didn't change much.

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

That's my point, though. Plenty of companies have engaged in abhorrent acts, with little meaningful consequences to them. The market is not good at solving these types of problems.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#404

Post by zimpenfish »

zimpenfish wrote: post #141
tnone wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing the original memo author has a PhD in biology then. That post is a cowardly and smarmy non answer, and it contradicts itself in several ways. Aside from the one already mentioned, it claims making people feel bad at their job is inappropriate (even though the memo did no such thing) and then goes on to actually mock the author by claiming he sounds like he's bad at his job. Rules for thee but not for me. U…

His PhD is in "Systems Biology", isn't it? Which is more about computational approaches to understanding biological systems than, at the risk of simplifying horribly, "messy" biology. > making people feel bad at their job is inappropriate (even though the memo did no such thing) Say you've got red hair and someone sent a memo around saying that they'd heard that everyone with red hair was more of a fuzzy people perso…

[Apparently he doesn't have a PhD at all and has been misrepresenting this. Tch.]

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#405

Post by dankent »

josteink wrote: post #274
orbitur wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure I would describe the sources as 'from here to the moon' On reading many of the sources, it was apparent that they did not provide particularly solid evidence to back up the points he was making. It was also obvious that there was a huge amount of cherry picking going on.

I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#406

Post by piaste »

Daishiman wrote: post #365
josteink wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right. Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions. Oh right, there's no actual time in the history of humanity, with the exception of a select few people whose odious opinions everyone had to tolerate or else.

> Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions.

Strawman.

No, there has probably never been such a time, at least for sufficiently creative uses of 'whatever'.

But that doesn't mean everything is fine, and it doesn't mean freedom of expression and public discourse haven't visibly degraded since, for example, ten or twenty years ago.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#407

Post by EJTH »

> we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves

By fireing them? Really?!

I see a lot of criticism from people who didn't read the memo. Most people just fall for the sensationalist headlines of "OMG GOOGLE RELEASED ANTI-WOMEN MEMO REEE".

The memo wasn't that bad. It tries to highlight some very real problems in this age of intersectional recruitment.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#408

Post by EJTH »

xenadu02 wrote: post #181
TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Having read the original memo, if anything in there actually violates Google's Code of Conduct, then they need to have a serious discussion about the CoC itself (and how they interpret it).

Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are >being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... because you clearly aren’t. James Damore didn’t bother to do any research…

Im curious, did you even read the thing? Your rage is out of proportion with what was actually written in the paper...

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#409

Post by EJTH »

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…

Why should a company do affirmative action based on race? Isn't that kind of racist?

I hope we go back to the days where an individuals merits had more to say in a recruitment process than their skin color.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#410

Post by EJTH »

edynoid wrote: post #240
cema wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!

Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like. The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.

Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?
Post reply on HN