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

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

#201

Post by anonymouskimmer » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

Danihan wrote: post #104

chubot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Here is the only intelligent thing I've read about this debacle: To me, if you read it and are completely outraged or uniformly in favor, then you are part of the problem. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/google-employee-manif...

I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree with facts that are true? Especially in this case, when most cognitive scientists seem to agree upon the facts as presented? [1] It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arg…

"Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals"

Unforunately it takes years for a person to really known another person as an individual. And even then the preferences inherent in the first person will bias what they do with the knowledge they have of the other individual. Thus this isn't a solution.

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

#202

Post by GreaterFool » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

GreaterFool wrote: post #117

This is the first fair and balanced article on this topic I've seen. > In his memo, Damore cites a series of studies, making the case, for example, that men tend to be more interested in things and women more interested in people. (Interest is not the same as ability.) I've been trying to hammer this point to all my colleagues (in private of course, I wouldn't dare to post it on public channel due to high probability…

Meanwhile there's been an ongoing campaign to discredit Stephen Miller based on his looks.

I found this portrayal shocking: https://youtu.be/ej_5vyDkZgU?t=280

He's been labeled "a creep" for no reason by those who claim to be righteous and politically correct and fighting for the marginalized.

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

#203

Post by UK-AL » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #181

UK-AL wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more free the genders are, the more they tend to polarise on certain careers. Since they tend to pursue what they prefer. I'm all for having no blockers for people choosing what careers they want. However people will move towards there preferences, and there preferences will be set either by nature or culture.

"The more free the genders are, the more they tend to polarise on certain careers." Yeah, just calling a Scandinavian nation "free" says absolutely nothing about its particular societal pressures. Societal pressures which effect everyone whether they are egosyntonic or distonic to the individuals caught up in the society. More evidence is needed to support this hypothesis.

I'm not sure biasing interviews towards certain genders is the way to fix that though.

Get more people apply, educate women about those options etc etc

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

#204

Post by mc32 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #89

endorphone wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The firing has been a PR disaster, and amplified and exaggerated the effect of this issue (not to mention that it drew attention to other factors, like Google's institutional ageism). And while I don't want to diagnose over the internet, it seems like it's attacking someone on the spectrum for traits of being on the spectrum. By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, and doubled down on this discussion.…

> By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, To a small, vocal group. > By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way There were good reasons for doing it that had nothing to do with science or evidence. There are women working at Google who do not need to be reminded of the genetic and biologic differences they have from their cishet male counterparts. If Damon had issues with the policies at Google…

One could say the people wanting the ex a employee fired were also a small vocal group. I really doubt more than 10% of Googlers felt personally threatened affronted by someone having a different view on advancing women in tech.

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

#205

Post by igravious » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

moneytalks wrote: post #105

Let's take bets on how long this survives on the front page. I'm going with 15-20 minutes from now. Who wants the over/under? edit: Already down from 3rd to 6th while points went from 130 to 170. 7 minutes in. edit: now 7th

I think roughly 55 minutes is what it took, so I think about 30-35 minutes after you posted. I can't be exactly sure

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

#206

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

ebola1717 wrote: post #81

EduardoBautista wrote: post #12

Convincing women to focus on a career in STEM is telling them that their choices for careers in nursing, teaching, and any other career dominated by women are wrong choices. I don't believe that, they are essential to our society and are arguably more important than helping create better ads at Google and Facebook.

The fact that those fields are undervalued (and often underpaid) is a huge part of this discussion that anyone who fights for diversity in tech is well aware of and has been saying long before this memo was released.

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by Danihan » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #201

Danihan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree with facts that are true? Especially in this case, when most cognitive scientists seem to agree upon the facts as presented? [1] It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arg…

"Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals" Unforunately it takes years for a person to really known another person as an individual. And even then the preferences inherent in the first person will bias what they do with the knowledge they have of the other individual. Thus this isn't a solution.

I believe that treating everyone as individuals, rather than as tribal groups, is the only way forward. You don't have to get to know someone at a deep level to make a hiring decision.

What ever happened to the notion of being color-blind when it comes to policy enforcement? AKA, actually treating people equally, based on merit?

What exactly is wrong with "blind-hiring," rather than "diversity-conscious" hiring? It worked to remove the gender gap in orchestras. Why wouldn't it be good to use in tech?

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...

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

#208

Post by dionian » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #93

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #25

Wow, I'd never imagine to read this piece in NY Times.

Maybe you have unfounded biases against the NYT based on the propaganda outlets you get your information from.

Nah, it's just a token opinion column, they do it all the time. The rest of the paper is still unabashedly pro-Left

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

#209

Post by peoplewindow » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #109

the_common_man wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective The person who posted their thoughts did so in a _closed_ mailing list that was intentionally setup to discuss all this. The document was leaked. At best, he deserved a reprimand. Firing him makes it clear that there is no room for alternate thoughts in Google other than the ultra-progressive view point.

One thing I do not get is why was the (original) memo written in "Google's voice" rather than stated as a personal point of view. Who, except maybe Sundar Pichai and the head of HR, has a right to talk for the company as a whole?

What makes you think it was?

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

#210

Post by avs733 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #164

And once again, the characterization of "allowing the debate" means one thing for James (why, he "cited studies") and another for everyone else (they are an angry mob). The most telling bias in this piece is that characterization. Perhaps is James had not hamfistedly "cited" population research (as Brooks suggests) but then given very specific personal-level fixes (e.g., pair programming , suggestions of "pipeline" f…

While I agree, I think brook's argument is even more easily dismissable as the BS it is. One of several reasons for citing material on which an argument is based is to trace the flow of knowledge and tie statements to the prior research they interpret.

James fundamentally misinterpreted much of the research he cited in ways that are overly summative to make a point he wanted to make. He sought research to give his biases the veneer of science without understanding what the authors of the underlying research meant.

This whole incident, from the very beginning, represents one of the major problems with public understanding of science. There are basic ontological misconceptions about the relationship of researchers and research, about the generalizability of most scientific research, AND about how scientists within a field interpret and infer from results...and how future scientists build on that work. Because so much of that thinking work is invisible to the naked eye or is lost in media depictions, people think they have a greater understanding of how science constructs knowledge and they feel excessively qualified to infer and extrapolate research beyond what original authors had intended.

As you note, when science is discussed through means, when people attempt to decontextualize science, and try and simply apply science as a post-hoc rationalization for their fears and biases they are the problem not the science and not those who call BS on bad uses of science.