4 ms·

I'd really like to see this document as a whole before judging. By the way, I think that being really open means listening to opinions without "rage quitting"

I'd really like to see this document as a whole before judging. By the way, I think that being really open means listening to opinions without "rage quitting" for holding an unpopular opinion, or calling him a "racist" or "white male supremacy supporter", which is a way to turn down an argument whatever its merit is. Is the document's author a jerk? Let's explain that to him, and maybe shame him on a data-driven basis. Has the author some valid point, but went too far with speculations? Maybe he/she doesn't deserve all this uproar.

lwansbrough 9y ago
At the same time, if the data supported his claims, I wonder what Googlers would have to say. If Google wants the best, what is it willing to risk? Personally I think for most companies you're better off with a diverse crowd regardless, lest you end up with a bunch of out of touch yuppie guys trying to "change the world" by building an IOT coffee machine. That is to say, all types of diversity be it race, socioeconomic status, gender, etc. will inevitably contribute to your company's collective wisdom, which is probably generally has a larger impact than ensuring everyone you hire has all the sorting algorithms memorized.
- alanfranzoni 9y ago
  That may be an issue. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "best". If "best" means "like me", you're at risk of creating a monoculture. Personally, I think that we should stop looking for "the best" at all times and enormously rewarding them, because this is creating a lot of disparity, and maybe "the best" sometimes carry with them some large drawback (possibly "the best" engineer spends 10 hour working, and 6 more hours a day studying in order to improve; but, then, his social life and his human skills may be... lacking). If we pick all the best in this sense, we may end up with a lot of similar, great people with a lot of drawbacks. What if we ask "is this candidate good" or "is this candidate really good"? We should try to identify a bar, then pick people (maybe randomly, maybe with a diversity target) that go beyond that bar without looking at finding "the best".
  - vostok 9y ago
    Or you could hire the best for a given role in a given context. Sometimes you need the whiz kid who can rewrite Torch from scratch in a weekend. It's OK if they eat the gunk between their toes. Sometimes you need the gregarious former athlete. It's OK if they got an A- in real analysis.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Do you have any data that suggests that monoculture is bad? My anecdotal evidence suggests that monocultures are the most efficient and effective teams. An important note here is that culture != skin color. Being from the same culture expedites a lot of communication and results in easier/greater team cohesiveness. A study recently came out about diversity in communities (not workplaces). Diversity and civic engagement are inversely related. The more diverse a neighborhood fewer people vote, fewer people volunteer, they give less to charity, etc. I can't imagine there aren't similar impacts in the workplace. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
    - alanfranzoni 9y ago
      No, I don't have any data. The problem with monoculture, by the way, is that you might end up discarding somebody for "wrong culture fit" rather than actual skills. And that's something I'd like to avoid.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        That's only a problem if there's a shortage of people with applicable skills, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of businesses. All other things being equal, a "good culture fit" should make a better member of the team. If monoculture improves team effectiveness, then a better culture fit is likely even worth paying a price premium.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
watwut 9y ago
If the "unpopular opinion" is euphemism for "dude assumes I am less competent without even knowing me" then being "really open" is indistinguishable from being one massive doormat.
- alanfranzoni 9y ago
  We can't know that if we don't read the full document. I think you're jumping to conclusions without assessing facts first; that's exactly the issue I'm talking about. As soon as somebody says something about "politically correct" practices, he must fear retaliation. Maybe he/she is saying that such diversity practices don't work as intended, and that diversity should be achieved in a different way. Maybe he/she is saying that such diversity practices led to hiring women or other minorities, but that the mindset is not growing different enough. Have you ever considered such possibilities?
  - watwut 9y ago
    I am not jumping to anything. I am answering your general point with another general point. I did not addressed specific point you raised "is the author jerk", because I find his jerk-status irrelevant. There are plenty of charizmatic sexists and plenty of jerks that are not sexist.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ehsankia 9y ago
Dragging this to public and trying to shame the person is absolutely the wrong move. They're just proving his point that these people are not open to rigorous discussions. The perfect example is Milo. Every time he gets kicked out of a campus, his point gets proven. But almost every time I've seen someone sit down with him and debate his flawed arguments, he got pretty much proven wrong on most of them.
- joe5150 9y ago
  how much energy are we supposed to devote to sitting down with and debating people like Milo? that works out well for him because he has nothing else to do with his time; most people don't have the luxury.
  - ehsankia 9y ago
    Then don't go to the event. No one's forced anyone to attend it, just like no one's forced anyone to read this document or agree with it. There are millions of shitty discussions being conducted on the web at any given second. If you tried to stop every single one, you'd probably waste far more time.

lwansbrough 9y ago

At the same time, if the data supported his claims, I wonder what Googlers would have to say. If Google wants the best, what is it willing to risk? Personally I think for most companies you're better off with a diverse crowd regardless, lest you end up with a bunch of out of touch yuppie guys trying to "change the world" by building an IOT coffee machine. That is to say, all types of diversity be it race, socioeconomic status, gender, etc. will inevitably contribute to your company's collective wisdom, which is probably generally has a larger impact than ensuring everyone you hire has all the sorting algorithms memorized.

alanfranzoni 9y ago
That may be an issue. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "best". If "best" means "like me", you're at risk of creating a monoculture. Personally, I think that we should stop looking for "the best" at all times and enormously rewarding them, because this is creating a lot of disparity, and maybe "the best" sometimes carry with them some large drawback (possibly "the best" engineer spends 10 hour working, and 6 more hours a day studying in order to improve; but, then, his social life and his human skills may be... lacking). If we pick all the best in this sense, we may end up with a lot of similar, great people with a lot of drawbacks. What if we ask "is this candidate good" or "is this candidate really good"? We should try to identify a bar, then pick people (maybe randomly, maybe with a diversity target) that go beyond that bar without looking at finding "the best".
- vostok 9y ago
  Or you could hire the best for a given role in a given context. Sometimes you need the whiz kid who can rewrite Torch from scratch in a weekend. It's OK if they eat the gunk between their toes. Sometimes you need the gregarious former athlete. It's OK if they got an A- in real analysis.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Do you have any data that suggests that monoculture is bad? My anecdotal evidence suggests that monocultures are the most efficient and effective teams. An important note here is that culture != skin color. Being from the same culture expedites a lot of communication and results in easier/greater team cohesiveness. A study recently came out about diversity in communities (not workplaces). Diversity and civic engagement are inversely related. The more diverse a neighborhood fewer people vote, fewer people volunteer, they give less to charity, etc. I can't imagine there aren't similar impacts in the workplace. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
  - alanfranzoni 9y ago
    No, I don't have any data. The problem with monoculture, by the way, is that you might end up discarding somebody for "wrong culture fit" rather than actual skills. And that's something I'd like to avoid.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      That's only a problem if there's a shortage of people with applicable skills, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of businesses. All other things being equal, a "good culture fit" should make a better member of the team. If monoculture improves team effectiveness, then a better culture fit is likely even worth paying a price premium.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago

watwut 9y ago

If the "unpopular opinion" is euphemism for "dude assumes I am less competent without even knowing me" then being "really open" is indistinguishable from being one massive doormat.

alanfranzoni 9y ago
We can't know that if we don't read the full document. I think you're jumping to conclusions without assessing facts first; that's exactly the issue I'm talking about. As soon as somebody says something about "politically correct" practices, he must fear retaliation. Maybe he/she is saying that such diversity practices don't work as intended, and that diversity should be achieved in a different way. Maybe he/she is saying that such diversity practices led to hiring women or other minorities, but that the mindset is not growing different enough. Have you ever considered such possibilities?
- watwut 9y ago
  I am not jumping to anything. I am answering your general point with another general point. I did not addressed specific point you raised "is the author jerk", because I find his jerk-status irrelevant. There are plenty of charizmatic sexists and plenty of jerks that are not sexist.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ehsankia 9y ago

Dragging this to public and trying to shame the person is absolutely the wrong move. They're just proving his point that these people are not open to rigorous discussions. The perfect example is Milo. Every time he gets kicked out of a campus, his point gets proven. But almost every time I've seen someone sit down with him and debate his flawed arguments, he got pretty much proven wrong on most of them.

joe5150 9y ago
how much energy are we supposed to devote to sitting down with and debating people like Milo? that works out well for him because he has nothing else to do with his time; most people don't have the luxury.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  Then don't go to the event. No one's forced anyone to attend it, just like no one's forced anyone to read this document or agree with it. There are millions of shitty discussions being conducted on the web at any given second. If you tried to stop every single one, you'd probably waste far more time.