Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 507 posts

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

#331

Post by bduerst »

humanrebar wrote: post #297
bduerst wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing revelationary about that statement. Anyone could read Google's code of conduct and know that Google would fire/reprimand someone for being toxic to their coworkers. Employees are free to debate and cherry pick evidence about their opinions on the world being flat, 9/11 being an inside job, even a fake moon landing. James decided he wanted to debate about his opinion on his workers being biologically i…

If he has the opinion that his coworkers are biologically inferior, I didn't see that in the memo. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

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 attribute these "biologically-caused" personality differences (neuroticism, agreeableness, less ambition, etc.) to women being the ones to blame for their problems in tech.

This opinion is toxic to his coworkers, which is a violation of the Google Code of Conduct.

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

#332

Post by nlowell »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #97
Torai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article: > There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama, but I’d say the one who’s behaved the worst is the C.E.O., Sundar Pichai. He is implicitly criticizing the whole drama thing. And when saying Pichai behaved worst, I understand he is saying Pichai was who contributed most to make the drama bigger. I think Brooks is contributing a lot to make the drama bigger. That's my point.

So is your point that this journalist guy should just not write about it? That's his job. It's different from a CEO making a bad decision.

It's one thing to write about something, it's another thing to have a call for action.

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

#333

Post by mwytock »

LunaSea wrote: post #311
mwytock wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, saying things that are clearly wrong and offensive to large numbers of people is typically looked down upon amongst educated people and highly discouraged at the workplace. For example, think of other stereotypes about other groups (blacks, hispanics, jews) and think about what the response would be if an employee was publishing 10 page manifestos with loosely connected scientific arguments in support of these…

There is nothing that is clearly wrong about the memo in itself and lots of Googlers actually voiced support for it and agreed. So your comment would be equally offensive to them because you call them uneducated and their opinion invalid. Creating a strawman argument around racial stereotypes is just an added layer of misdirection and tastelessness.

You made a blanket statement about discussing offensive things and I wanted to point out there are some limits, especially at the workplace.

In this particular case, I feel that leadership and everyone who disagreed with the memo should have at least stated explicitly (if briefly) what the flaws in the reasoning were, as I tried to do at the beginning of this thread.

Obviously, my explanation was not sufficient to convince you and you are still holding on to the belief that women are biologically ill-suited to be engineers. But at least now I have tried to make it clear to you where I think you are wrong. Thats pretty much all you can accomplish on some issues.

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

#334

Post by lucozade »

daenz wrote: post #143
s73ver wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way" But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue w…

>That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. I want to follow up on this, can you give an example? From what little I know, it's essentially settled science that men and women have statistically different interests, and those interests exist across all cultures (implying a biological ca…

The problem isn't with the science, it's with the misuse of the science to add apparent credence to flawed logic.

So yes, across humanity there are statistical gender differences to the choices people make. The flaw in the logic is that that doesn't means Google shouldn't act on bias in its selection and retention policies. What it may well mean is that Google may need to mitigate the cultural biases both internally and externally if they are going to make more than a small dent in the imbalance.

Similarly, it doesn't follow from the argument that humanity is what it is to a position that Google shouldn't attempt gender equality. It does mean that it'll be tricky for a company their size. But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.

BTW there is often the assumption that something like gender equality is purely a political goal. And quite often it is. However, there is a very good argument that the tech pool for high potential people is quite shallow given the current and expected demand.

In my org we are taking steps to try to widen the pool of intellectually able people we can select from. One area that we are targeting is women. Another is geographical areas where we don't have traction (mainly eastern Europe and Africa). This isn't political per se. This is so we have a wider talent pool to choose from. I would be genuinely stunned if this type of thinking wasn't in part what Google senior management are also looking at.

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

#335

Post by humanrebar »

danarmak wrote: post #292
humanrebar wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sundar found it necessary to lie in his official statement about what Damore had said It could be a lie? It seems more logical that it's a misunderstanding. Neither make Pichai look good, especially since he had no discussions with Damore (according to Damore) to clear up any misunderstandings.

It's like the article says: either Sundar didn't take the time to read the memo himself (which would be stupid and dangerous), or he didn't understand it (which is another way of calling him stupid), or - as seems most likely - he knowingly misrepresented it.

It may be a knowing representation, though Hanlon's Razor would indicate some lack of rigor instead.

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

#336

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

guelo wrote: post #317
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with parent based on my own experience, and I'm sure parent bases his/her comment based on experience too. I have been a NYTimes reader for a while and still read some of their less political articles, but when it comes to political pieces I stay away from them because I get nothing new, most of their articles are obviously left biased (For the record, I am NOT right wing. I just appreciate unbiased journalis…

Well I do read NYT's political pieces and haven't ever noticed any biases against conservatives.

Interesting. Do you think NYT is a neutral publication? Honest question.

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

#338

Post by humanrebar »

bduerst wrote: post #331
humanrebar wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he has the opinion that his coworkers are biologically inferior, I didn't see that in the memo. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

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

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

#339

Post by chubot »

Danihan wrote: post #265
chubot wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you have to accept that the debate isn't about all about scientific facts; it's about their implication in workplace policies. Reducing workplace interaction to science is a fallacy. When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge? Second…

Obviously I have my own worldview and biases. That being said, I've tried painstakingly to develop a worldview that is accurate and not based on wishful thinking. Yes, I do base what I eat on nutritional facts, rather than just cultural norms. For instance, I don't eat vegetable oils hardly at all. I do periods of water fasting to initiate autophagy in my body. Neither of those things is culturally common in my circl…

By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate is too extreme.

I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any science about discrimination against women.

It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against). That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy".

The problem is the "100%, facts that are completely true" mindset. Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not 100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You should read a little about the philosophy of science.

I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in a more constructive way.

And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.

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

#340

Post by trhway »

peoplewindow wrote: post #77

I am minded to agree. And that's a shame, because Pichai has done good things for Chrome and Android when he was leading those. The article doesn't really touch on Pichai's biggest mistakes here. Mistake one: Damore's memo alleged discrimination, both against men and conservatives. Gender and political affiliation are both protected classes in California and they just fired him for whistleblowing. He has now filed a…

>discrimination, both against men and conservatives.

while men is [at least nominally] protected class, being a conservative isn't.

>Google is extremely hostile to conservatives.

can't applaud enough to Google here. According to the well known court decisions, a corporation is, like a person, entitled to have its own political opinion and actions, and it is the time somebody would answer to conservatives in kind. Conservatives whine so much every time they get a taste of their own medicine.

Shareholders who don't like Google's opinion can just sell their stock, as nobody forces them to own it.

Post reply on HN