Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O • Hacker News Board

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#371

Post by dahart » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #359

dahart wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. He was saying that on the whole there's a biological reason when you roll the dice enough that more males are suitable for that work. I don't understand what you said there, can you elaborate? What is the difference between males being more biologically suitable and females being at a dis…

From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you help me understand why it's not a contradiction? The IQ distribution of men and women is slightly different, and this is essentially settled science (it really is, however much we might pontificate -- our genetic past rolls the dice more with males). The male curve is slightly fatter, yielding larger numbers of exceptionally high and exceptionally low membe…

> The IQ distribution of men and women is slightly different, and this is essentially settled science

How different? Can you source this claim? Are the means & medians at different places? How far apart are they? Are they far enough part to justify a male/female ratio in the tech workforce of 4x? I'm not arguing with you, but you are contradicting the article at hand.

"the mainstream view is that male and female abilities are the same across the vast majority of domains — I.Q., the ability to do math, etc."

> Women in engineering has stayed virtually constant for several decades now.

Which decades are you talking about? Which countries are you talking about? Please source this wildly inaccurate claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_engineerin...

"According to studies by the National Science Foundation, the percentage of BA/BS degrees in engineering awarded to women in the U.S. increased steadily from 0.4 percent in 1966 to a peak of 20.9 percent in 2002"

That's a factor of 40x in 40 years. That doesn't sound super constant to me. How fast does evolution work again?

"Only 9.6% of engineers in Australia are women"

Interesting. Does that mean it's likely that Australian women are biologically only half as engineering capable as American women?

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#372

Post by thegayngler » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #338

bduerst wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question. I didn't come to the conclusion, many others have based on his premise of using personality constructs as being caused by evolutionary psychology. You can see it in the paper how he starts with the obvious, "Men and Women are biologically different" and then jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't attri…

Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. > ...jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. Some personality differences in populations are supported by some studies. He cites studies about personal interests, for example. It's possible that he goes too far (scientifically speaking) with some conjecture, but he w…

> ...but he was careful to say that properties of large populations don't apply on the level of an individual or selected group.

Then why bring it up if what he says doesn't matter within the context in which they are hiring people. Google isn't hiring people on a population basis. They are hiring people on an individual basis.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#373

Post by where_do_i_live » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #344

where_do_i_live wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that critique, but I've found numerous more critiques that have supported his position. Do I have a monopoly on saying what percentage support him - No, but it appears so far, and this may turn out to be wrong, that more academics appear to support his claims than those that deny them. They can be left to argue among themselves however just like any other scientific debate. Social sciences are further compl…

Perhaps some quality over quantity is needed, this answer on quora is the most in depth critique of the bad science in his paper I've been able to find so far: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... Besides it's hardly fair for us to expect academics who are critical of the memo to speak publically about the issue when the alt-right is currently doxxing people for doing just that.

I don't find her critiques convincing in all respects. A couple of her answers seem to be strawmen. For example:

The passing mention of IQ is interesting, since it has nothing to do with gender, which is the focus everywhere else. He’s presumably talking about race, but he doesn’t want to be branded a racist, so he keeps the reference subtle. So why risk doing it at all? It’s a dog-whistle to the alt-right.

She admits she is _assuming_ his intentions - sets up the strawman, and counters it. BOOM - the guy is now racist.

As for Milo and his ilk - yeah they can go to hell - but what? This guy gets fired for speaking publicly? That seems a double standard.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#374

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #192

Shank wrote: post #8

Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…

No, the right move would have been to take Damore aside, say "dude, you stirred up a mess. You aren't wrong but the mess is a PR disaster. How about we hand you a big pile of money, you go find your next job elsewhere, and we agree not to throw mud at each other?" I can see not doing that when you are cash poor but Google is paying engineers as much as $600K/year in total comp, they could have landed $10M on Damore a…

I'm pretty amazed how badly google dropped the ball on this. They could have easily made the problem go away, likely with a few conversations where they agree to sit down and listen to his concerns upon his first submission of them to the diversity team or as you suggested a check and NDA.

Whoever runs the diversity team should absolutely lose their job for letting this get to this point. Following that whoever decided that flying the CEO back to publicly fire someone and denigrate them was a good idea and the best way to proceed. A CEO of one of the worlds most powerful companies publicly firing and shaming an employee who simply presented an opinion through proper channels is just not a well thought out move.

Staggering amount of poor judgement all around.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#375

Post by daxorid » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:18 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #8

Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…

> One does not simply create a PR disaster for the company

The memo wasn't a PR disaster; the firing was.

Data point of one: Google has lost, just from my personal accounts alone, $40/mo in G Suite/YouTube Red revenue, and $620/mo in GCE Compute instance revenue.

Not because of the memo; because of the firing. Absolutely disgusting and unconscionable.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#376

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

where_do_i_live wrote: post #373

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps some quality over quantity is needed, this answer on quora is the most in depth critique of the bad science in his paper I've been able to find so far: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... Besides it's hardly fair for us to expect academics who are critical of the memo to speak publically about the issue when the alt-right is currently doxxing people for doing just that.

I don't find her critiques convincing in all respects. A couple of her answers seem to be strawmen. For example: The passing mention of IQ is interesting, since it has nothing to do with gender, which is the focus everywhere else. He’s presumably talking about race, but he doesn’t want to be branded a racist, so he keeps the reference subtle. So why risk doing it at all? It’s a dog-whistle to the alt-right. She admit…

Maybe what would advance this conversation is if you could tell me which of her critiques you did find convincing.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#377

Post by heurist » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

bassman9000 wrote: post #361

jressey wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what he intended the thesis to be, that thing was just a bunch of dog whistles that sounded an awful lot like ignorant alt-right bullshit to me.

And HR, instead of addressing those points, refuting what would be wrong, and leading him to apologize if so, thus sending a powerful message about the existence of debate and rationale, recommended his firing, making him a martyr, and validating the part about the lack of dissent.

Do we know the full series of events leading to the firing?

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#378

Post by endorphone » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #371

endorphone wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you help me understand why it's not a contradiction? The IQ distribution of men and women is slightly different, and this is essentially settled science (it really is, however much we might pontificate -- our genetic past rolls the dice more with males). The male curve is slightly fatter, yielding larger numbers of exceptionally high and exceptionally low membe…

> The IQ distribution of men and women is slightly different, and this is essentially settled science How different? Can you source this claim? Are the means & medians at different places? How far apart are they? Are they far enough part to justify a male/female ratio in the tech workforce of 4x? I'm not arguing with you, but you are contradicting the article at hand. "the mainstream view is that male and female abil…

The difference between male and female IQ curves is easily found, and is scientifically settled. I don't particularly care if I'm contradicting the article at hand -- I'm not trying to vouch for it, but am saying that it's a rational discussion.

>Please source this wildly inaccurate claim.

I said for several decades. You cite the change for over five decades.

From 1990 to today -- closing on three decades -- women in engineering has stayed virtually unchanged in the US.

You seem to be taking the shotgun approach, and seem wholly ingenuine in discussing this rationally, so I would say this discussion is done.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#379

Post by Ajedi32 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

nobodyman wrote: post #370

Ajedi32 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why even bother mentioning biology then if there are other influences more important and relevant? It seemed very emphasized. Because that portion of the essay was meant to counter what the author perceived to be Google's current position on the matter: that societal factors are the _only_ factor resulting in a lower percentage of women in tech. From the memo: > For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on th…

> The author isn't saying that biological differences are the _only_ factor; only that that they are _a_ factor... This is true, but as /u/taysic pointed out elsewhere, Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it. > ... and that Google has been completely neglecting that factor with the current implementation of their efforts to improve diversi…

> Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it.

Right. I explained why that was in the previous part of my comment.

> Perhaps Google is evaluating more factors than Damore? [...]

Perhaps so. They made no such claim in their response to Damore's essay though. In fact, they didn't address any of his points at all; they just fired him, thus proving the main point of his essay:

> People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. [...]

> Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#380

Post by yorwba » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

srslack wrote: post #362

yorwba wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something clearly wrong about the memo: it uses the direction of various effects to make a qualitative argument to explain a quantitative difference in gender distribution. If he had instead used the effect sizes in his reasoning, and predicted the resulting distribution (allowing direct comparison with reality), it would be much easier to objectively determine where he is right and where wrong. I'm fairly c…

No, there's something wrong with your reading comprehension. >things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees, That's not one of the points of the memo. One of (the primary) point is to potentially explain a gap instead of relying solely on the assumption that the sole cause is discrimination, or "bro culture" or whatever trash rags like Model View C…

It is amusing that you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension, but then read things into my comment that I explicitly did not include because I'm tired of listing all the ways I agree with the memo.

>>things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees,

> That's not one of the points of the memo. One of (the primary) point is to potentially explain a gap

So one of the points is to potentially explain a gap, and I think his potential explanation involves mentioning some effects that might be strong enough to explain the gap. I'm not sure why you singled out that point to disagree with me.

I especially limited my statement to Google employees because for Damore's purpose of influencing Google's diversity policy, effects on software engineering in general only matter in so far as they affect Google. I have not excluded the possibility that the majority of the gap is "inherited" through the hiring pool (in fact I think it likely).

However, you should not be so quick to exclude discrimination from the possible effects that have to be taken into account. In fact, Damore himself alleges that discrimination is happening, just in favor of women instead of against them. Had he actually crunched the numbers to estimate the expected gender distribution and compare it to reality, it would have been easy to see whether discrimination is involved and in which direction. But he didn't (maybe the data isn't precise enough to allow it), and now we are left arguing about possibilities and what was said.

Lastly, while I mostly agree with the content of your comment, you would do better to exclude the name-calling. It doesn't help to convince anyone who doesn't already share your views, and it alienates others who would otherwise be willing to engage in a level-headed debate with you.