Live data from Hacker News

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

411–420 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#411
post #236
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the memo wasn't a political document, it was a document about google's diversity policies that was geared towards starting a discussion and changing those polices: Here is a copy of the memo https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

> Here is a copy of the memo A copy that conveniently leaves out all the links and citations, as well as several graphs and charts. And while they do note that "two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted", one of those charts is quite important given that it's right before he starts going on about how men and women differ on average, but that "Populations have significant overlap. Reducing people to their gro…

Yup. This is the state of modern journalism. Its not a lie if you ommit something apparently. But its a dick move to fit this bullshit story into their agenda.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#412
post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

Yes he does, he says it word for word. He says women, on average, have more of those traits. Then he draws the conclusion that because of these personality differences, that women have a harder time leading. That's not supported by any research he cites.

> So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading

Yes, he does say that here: "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading."

> he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations

He specifically cites "leading". And, that claim is not backed by any research.

> senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it

That is not in the memo.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#413
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I remember when the Simpsons came out and when the same sort of people were complaining that cartoons were degrading our society's morals.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Howe…

"I thought some of his arguments were very weak"

Sorry, but unless you are some leading researcher in a related field, your "thoughts" doesn't count for much and you should provide cited counter claims to be taken seriously. Without this, it's all just an emotional reaction and doesn't contribute anything of value to a meaningful discussion.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#415
post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Howe…

"I thought some of his arguments were very weak" Sorry, but unless you are some leading researcher in a related field, your "thoughts" doesn't count for much and you should provide cited counter claims to be taken seriously. Without this, it's all just an emotional reaction and doesn't contribute anything of value to a meaningful discussion.

One doesn't need to be an expert in a particular field to identify a weak argument.

For example, the author of the memo presents some citations to back up the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that might explain why more men than women choose to work in tech. I don't find that idea controversial.

However, none of the citations provide any evidence that the degree of biological difference between the male and female population is sufficient to explain the relative gender balance we see in tech.

I don't need to be an expert to notice the lack of evidence for that part of the argument and conclude that the argument is poorly made.

It is possible that such evidence does exist and I would be interested to see it but that would not change that fact that this memo, with its cited evidence, failed to make that case.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#416

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…

I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.

1. Select the right audience for your message. (E.g., Does it need to go to the Google founders, or is the true audience open public since the problem is still bigger?)

2. Educate your audience ahead of time, or at least as the opening part of the message:

2a. What the intentions for the message are? (E.g., help understand the true root causes of diversity gaps, reiterate that there are invalid opinions commonly held, and also boldly indicate that someone needs to stand up even in a culture there people do not openly share such analysis and/or opinions.)

2b. What the approach is (which would be to deep dive into the correct root cause of the issues (e.g., why working women have lower average salary than working men)? And explain that without understanding of the true root causes, it will only take longer to reach the optimal balance, never reach it perfectly, and the current situation may already be the maxima under the current set of beliefs.

2c. What are common pitfalls and misconceptions (e.g., assuming all gender gaps are coming from discrimination as the memo writer noted)?

3. The core message:

3a. What are the knowns (existing research) that points to the root cause?

3b. What are the unknowns that still need researching?

3c. Summarize the proposed next steps.

4. If as a result of capturing all of the above, the message is becoming too long:

4a. Revisit if you are targeting the right audience.

4b. Split it into smaller logical blocks, and deliver them in steps, so that people can actually follow, getting convinced along the way, rather than get inflamed.

5. There will still be people unfortunately who would not understand all this but who will resist nevertheless. A second round of explanations/FAQs would be needed to address them.

6. There will still be people unfortunately ... (Your approach above should be devised to help reach consensus.)

7. If at any point you realize that something was wrong in your own thinking, correct it, and revisit if your broader message still stands and is worthy. If you come out wrong too often, it's good for you (having learned something new), but be prepared to loose trust.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#417
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could not be much more unclear and I can assure you that this has nothing to do with some googlerian "cleverness". Science is not an ideology or opinion; in a diverse environment, reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. Exercising an executive bias to intimidate the employees into subscribing to a specific ideology is nothing this code of conduct were able to prevent. The coc could not perf…

> reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. "Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." isn't a reasonable position at Google, or any other big company. If for no other reason, to protect the company from being sued for gender discrimination. Neither are any of the following statements reasonable: "Blacks on average are... [insert some negative]". "Jews o…

[deleted]

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> but that is not going to happen.

At every company in the world. You aren't seriously expecting a company code of conduct to be applied fairly in some sort of scientifically measurable way? The code of conduct is there to protect against the worst types of behavior, and plenty of bad behavior will slip under the radar. So what? It's not meant to create some sort of utopian workplace. It's meant to create a better workplace for those who have historically been discriminated against. So far, it looks like it has come in handy at least once in a very public way.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eff…

This is a just-so story. Given the same scientific information in 1950, we might have predicted a continued aversion to science in women (unless you also believe the women of 1950 to be biologically different to today's modern superwomen). But the exact opposite thing happened, in almost every field --- except CS, which has lost women over the past decade.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#420
post #32

By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions. That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive.

a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive So what? This action might be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run. To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are o…

What makes you so sure that it's an "overwhelming majority of employees"?
Post reply on HN