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

421–430 of 507 posts

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

#421

Post by joshmarlow »

KirinDave wrote: post #184
endorphone wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I'm a white male. I know that the average Asian has a higher IQ than the average white man. This means positively nothing when comparing me with a given Asian, however. That is the root of this discussion that so many so profoundly miss. The average Google male is not…

> He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. Quite frankly: many people do. Some of them are at Google. James chose to run headlong into this discussion without any practical knowledge of the discourse. His point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it. Discussions of social iss…

"MRA/goreans" - Wait... is there actually a subset of MRA which literally want to bring back slavery, or are you being hyperbolic?

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

#422

Post by humanrebar »

dahart wrote: post #411
humanrebar wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope you're not suggesting that being fired from a company is somehow censorship. It is censorship. Read the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship The defense of the firing is that the censorship is justified, not that it isn't censorship. > What I care about is that his ideas are regressive and unintentionally sexist. It's not his fault, but he's fired anyway? That doesn't seem fair.

The stated reason for his firing was for breaking the existing written rules of the company. That part was his choice and is his fault. I feel like the goal posts are moving. The question you asked was whether it was his fault if doubt occurred as a reaction to his ideas, not whether he was at fault for getting fired. I guess you're right, it is censorship, so I take it back. I still feel like it applies to governmen…

The code of conduct, I understand, banned creating an unwelcoming culture through biased behavior. Saying he's in violation of that rule is begging the question.

So I'm not moving the goalposts. They weren't really set in the first place. I'm asking, more or less, if it's fair for a code of conduct (explicit or ad hoc) to make employees responsible for how their words are taken.

> It feels pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in contrast, widely considered unacceptable.

It's worse when governments do it because it's hard to change countries if you want your freedom to express yourself. But it's still an undue burden to have to switch jobs or even careers.

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

#423

Post by manigandham »

dahart wrote: post #399
dropstickle wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstood me. I was not making a biological correlation, but a statistical one; namely that group averages doesn't say anything about an individual. The nature/nurture debate of overweight people is besides the point.

Then I think you misunderstood the memo. The memo is making a biological correlation. It suggests that the current distributions might accurately reflect differences in biology. Nature vs nurture is completely the point here, Damore argued that nature is the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women in tech.

As long as an individual person is the sum of both nature and nurture, then regardless of the exact ratio of influence, nature will continue to make a difference.

> Damore argued that nature is the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women in tech.

No, he argued that nature in part, may explain the gender mismatch. That really cant be denied. It was also specifically talking about interests rather than capabilities of working in tech. Saying you might not be interested in programming software does not mean you're not able to.

The memo also never said we should stop nurturing women but that we should use different tactics that are more of match to their common on average biological traits and avoid any other discrimination based on race/gender, instead treating everyone as individuals.

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

#424

Post by humanrebar »

KirinDave wrote: post #389
humanrebar wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" fixes, etc) he would not have cast quite so much doubt over his intent. I haven't heard this point before and I'd like to understand it. What's the problem here?

James essentially keeps tackling what he views as the central issue, a "pipeline" problem. The larger body of feminist and even more centrist discourse has concluded that problem is not, in principle, what Google needs to address (other than at the very outermost edge of it's recruiting funnel, ensuring that recruiting engaged with organizations that support specific demographics). The internal problems with unfair t…

Thanks for the elaboration. I think I understand the point now.

> James conveniently pretends these don't exist and suggests women aren't entering the field.

I'll only point out that this is an inference, not an implication. I inferred the opposite from the memo; that he recognized that sexism exists and needs to be addressed. But that only doing that is not sufficient to address the gender imbalance and that focusing on it alone is harmful.

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

#425

Post by KirinDave »

joshmarlow wrote: post #421
KirinDave wrote: post #184

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. Quite frankly: many people do. Some of them are at Google. James chose to run headlong into this discussion without any practical knowledge of the discourse. His point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it. Discussions of social iss…

"MRA/goreans" - Wait... is there actually a subset of MRA which literally want to bring back slavery , or are you being hyperbolic?

There are numerous groups of unsavory folks who have reached this conclusion, and raft in ways to form a motley political crew we call the "alt right".

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

#426

Post by lucozade »

yorwba wrote: post #400
lucozade wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole. That reminds me of something I read recently: For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. Can you guess where I read that? (Hint: It was written by James Damore). Now it just…

I don't have to guess, I read it. Also, I don't agree with him. His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is. I find his approach to reaching that conclusion somewhat disingenuous.

And I don't get your point on profit. He didn't mention it nor do I think that's the part of the culture he wants to retain particularly. I didn't mention it either. I want my company to succeed, I am a shareholder after all. But I also want it to be a good place to work as I spend a reasonable chunk of my week there.

I also happen to be a father of a daughter who wants her to have every possible opportunity open to her. Assuming this is one dimensional doesn't really fit the facts.

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

#427

Post by joshmarlow »

KirinDave wrote: post #425
joshmarlow wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"MRA/goreans" - Wait... is there actually a subset of MRA which literally want to bring back slavery , or are you being hyperbolic?

There are numerous groups of unsavory folks who have reached this conclusion, and raft in ways to form a motley political crew we call the "alt right".

I'm done. Shut it down, Elon - we don't deserve to go to Mars. Shut it down!

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

#428

Post by MagnumOpus »

hrktb wrote: post #278
godd2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median income for a pediatrician is ~170k vs the median income of software engineer at ~80k, but 75% of pediatricians are women. So no, it's not only the "less well-paid" jobs. And even if it were, a lot of the lowest paid jobs are almost entirely men, like garbage collectors and construction workers.

I’m not familiar enough with the field, but from what I get scanning payscale.com: - general physician: 60% women, 137k in average - pediatricians: 80% women, 144k in average - obstetricians/gynecologists: 70% women, 205k in average - radiologist: 20% women, 300k in average Basically, in the doctors field pediatrician or gynecologist are middle range salary. Nothing to sneeze at, but the more lucrative areas pay way…

Since there isn't much difference in required skill or credentials or prerequisites (let's assume there isn't) we are back to preferences. What do we observe? The top three are high-social-interaction, nurturing-type jobs, the bottom one is technology-heavy and more solitary.

So we are back at the point that the document made - differing preferences are a far more likely explanation than discrimination.

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

#429

Post by pharrington »

KirinDave wrote: post #393
stagbeetle wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be frank, it's called being the better man. Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.

What do you think I am doing engaging this topic even though it's obviously time consuming and costly to me? I'm not here dropping links about stereotypes and pointing out trivial logical errors in the discourse because it's good for my heart or my psyche. I'm on Twitter hiatus, but I still end up wrapped in these fruitless conflicts. But please, continue arguing that what I'm doing is deleterious. I'm not friendly o…

The pain you're experiencing is cognitive dissonance. I am also very personally familiar with it, and I know how hard it is to recognize the cognitive dissonance in oneself. I also know that the pain -starts- going away when you're able to honestly confront yourself and the irrational and contradictory thoughts that are the root of the pain.

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

#430

Post by endorphone »

dahart wrote: post #417
dropstickle wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I should have been clearer, you stated to the parent reply that: >> 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 disadvantage? From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you help me understand why it's not a contradiction? This was in response to the parent that said Damore had not singled ou…

> The overweight example was an attempt to clarify that even though statistical averages say something about a group, it does not say something about the individual, i.e the google females should not feel singled out by statistical averages. Right. And what I've been trying to say is that the statistical averages aren't the offensive part. That's a straw man. Google women don't feel offended when they're told they're…

You intentional misinterpret the discussion. Well hopefully intentional, because otherwise it would reflect very poorly on you.

Let me use another example: The NFL has no rules against women playing. None. Yet 100% of players are male, because biologically the exceptionally large and athletic tend to be male. I'm male, so does that mean that I could be an NFL player? Of course not, and I in no universe am in that realm.

That is a more extreme example, but patronizingly suggesting that it's all just social is utterly laughable and just outright ignorant.

"This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely ignoring the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much larger"

At this point you've reached utter lol territory. You are outright being dense about actual science, and then casually waving your hands and claiming that is more authoritative.

Post reply on HN