4 ms·

Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men pr

Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men prefer working in engineering. No need to artificially increase percentage of women engineers with incentives. I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. Being fired for this polite memo? And being characterized as a kind of toxic outcast? - I'm sorry, what have our society and companies become? Googlers seem to be allowed to do his/her utmost only within a narrow cage of accepted/mainstream borders.

soundwave106 9y ago
I think the memo made two mistakes here. The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line really carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental constructs for IQ, and the difficulty of creating a single "IQ test" that measures every single aspect of human intelligence. The quote about "IQ and sex differences" (being something the left ignored) was only supported by a link to conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (which said some things about bias in science grants, but didn't really have anything to say about IQ and sex differences). This is the point where, to me, the memo went downhill. I am not sure it is the intention (possibly the emphasis was intended to be more the politic), but it is very easy to infer inferior / superior claims at this point, because the whole "IQ and sex differences" thing sort of came out of nowhere. The other reason it went downhill fast, and unnecessarily so, was because the paper brought in "liberal" vs "conservative" American political dynamics elements. BIG mistake. Any discussion along this line needs to be as apolitical as possible, lest it descend rapidly into toxic left-wing vs. right-wing tribalism territory (as, well, happened). Instead of attempting to skirt around politics, loaded phrases were used, particularly at the end of the memo, like "PC authoritarian", and sourced links typically were op-ed, often with strong bias. I agree that a lot of the memo is more some of the tribal / "role" paradigms and elements that have been discussed in many sources over time, and there's actually some interesting food for thought in it. I'm not terribly comfortable that what I see as poor communication skills led to the firing. I would not characterize this memo as "polite" though, for the above reasons.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  I would argue that IQ tests don't measure every single aspect of human intelligence, it's interested in one specific construct, if it exists -- g, which stands for a general capability. IQ is a test made for humans, but the concept of g is far more general than humans, and applies to machines as well. When Google's AlphaGo beat some famous champions, people were wondering whether Google's program was merely a Go-specific program, or a more general program that learned to play Go. I would also argue that if you went out and created another test for IQ, it would likely have high iter-rater reliability with IQ, but maybe have rough edges and have less empirical attention than mainstream tests like Ravens Matrices. That has been the history of people trying to make a name for themselves by making another intelligence construct, only to find it has insufficient distinction from IQ.
- orisa2 9y ago
  I'd also suggest that another factor is that the author assumed that his reader base would have basic statistical knowledge, which I'd suggest would not be true even among software engineers. Just erase any reference to distributions or averages and you'll see what most people see. This just adds to your points.
- appleflaxen 9y ago
  this was a fantastic critique. very well-reasoned; thank you.
- imron 9y ago
  > is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". He mentioned this only briefly (a bracketed clause 5 words long) as an example of science that the left ignores, because there does appear to be a difference in IQ between biological sexes [0], with current research suggesting the averages are similar, however there is a higher variation among males, leading to a higher proportion of men at the very high and very low ends of the spectrum. His comments on this were in no way used to infer one group was superior or more intelligent than the other. He was just pointing out that the left will ignore or deny science when it conflicts with ideology. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...
josteink 9y ago
> I'm sorry, what have our society and companies become? Afraid of angry, vocal and hysterical internet lynch mobs on social media. Whoever is most easily offended and cries loudest gets to decide. Being actually right, or god forbid principled, is clearly a thing of the past.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Right. Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions. Oh right, there's no actual time in the history of humanity, with the exception of a select few people whose odious opinions everyone had to tolerate or else.
  - piaste 9y ago
    > Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions. Strawman. No, there has probably never been such a time, at least for sufficiently creative uses of 'whatever'. But that doesn't mean everything is fine, and it doesn't mean freedom of expression and public discourse haven't visibly degraded since, for example, ten or twenty years ago.
    - Daishiman 9y ago
      I remember when the Simpsons came out and when the same sort of people were complaining that cartoons were degrading our society's morals.
morgtheborg 9y ago
I agree with you the reaction is insane. But "polite memo" is not how anyone I know would describe this. Conclusions, particularly conclusions on sensitive subjects, baldly stated without a bunch of qualifiers don't tend to be considered polite. Sucks, but there it is.
- scarmig 9y ago
  "Polite" does not mean decorating every single sentence you write with a pile of qualifiers. It was a badly structured and badly argued document, and I disagree with most of its factual claims and its policy recommendations. But it in no way was impolite or in violation of Google's code of conduct, unless you think that having that viewpoint inherently makes you in violation and deserving of excommunication.
  - morgtheborg 9y ago
    > in no way was impolite The reality is impolite is in the eye of the beholder (or culture). And in the Bay Area, that would be considered an impolite way of communicating considering the topic. I'm not applying a value judgement here.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. The one Pichai cited, >> It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." > I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. He said women have a harder time leading. That's a pretty big claim. None of his sources back it up, so it's just his opinion. At best, that makes him a legal risk for Google if he were involved in any hiring or promotional processes.
- imron 9y ago
  > He said women have a harder time leading. He said, in the context of Big-5 personality traits [0], that women on average skew higher for 'agreeableness' (a scientifically sound finding that has been replicated in cross-cultural studies), and that high agreeableness leads to having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. He's not saying women have a harder time at these things, he's saying people with a high agreeableness personality trait have a hard time at these things. His very next sentence states that while women have higher agreeableness at population-level averages, it would be wrong to just look at averages between genders because there is significant overlap in these traits across genders. However because it is seen by senior management as a problem for women, men with high agreeableness are excluded from training programs designed to help people with things such as negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading, he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations (not that they lack aptitude or ability for it), and that senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it, but because these training programs are only for women, they are excluding a large portion of men with the same traits, who are then denied access to similar corrective training. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > He's not saying women have a harder time at these things, he's saying people with a high agreeableness personality trait have a hard time at these things. Yes he does, he says it word for word. He says women, on average, have more of those traits. Then he draws the conclusion that because of these personality differences, that women have a harder time leading. That's not supported by any research he cites. > So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading Yes, he does say that here: "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." > he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations He specifically cites "leading". And, that claim is not backed by any research. > senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it That is not in the memo.

soundwave106 9y ago

I think the memo made two mistakes here. The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line really carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental constructs for IQ, and the difficulty of creating a single "IQ test" that measures every single aspect of human intelligence. The quote about "IQ and sex differences" (being something the left ignored) was only supported by a link to conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (which said some things about bias in science grants, but didn't really have anything to say about IQ and sex differences). This is the point where, to me, the memo went downhill. I am not sure it is the intention (possibly the emphasis was intended to be more the politic), but it is very easy to infer inferior / superior claims at this point, because the whole "IQ and sex differences" thing sort of came out of nowhere. The other reason it went downhill fast, and unnecessarily so, was because the paper brought in "liberal" vs "conservative" American political dynamics elements. BIG mistake. Any discussion along this line needs to be as apolitical as possible, lest it descend rapidly into toxic left-wing vs. right-wing tribalism territory (as, well, happened). Instead of attempting to skirt around politics, loaded phrases were used, particularly at the end of the memo, like "PC authoritarian", and sourced links typically were op-ed, often with strong bias. I agree that a lot of the memo is more some of the tribal / "role" paradigms and elements that have been discussed in many sources over time, and there's actually some interesting food for thought in it. I'm not terribly comfortable that what I see as poor communication skills led to the firing. I would not characterize this memo as "polite" though, for the above reasons.

threatofrain 9y ago
I would argue that IQ tests don't measure every single aspect of human intelligence, it's interested in one specific construct, if it exists -- g, which stands for a general capability. IQ is a test made for humans, but the concept of g is far more general than humans, and applies to machines as well. When Google's AlphaGo beat some famous champions, people were wondering whether Google's program was merely a Go-specific program, or a more general program that learned to play Go. I would also argue that if you went out and created another test for IQ, it would likely have high iter-rater reliability with IQ, but maybe have rough edges and have less empirical attention than mainstream tests like Ravens Matrices. That has been the history of people trying to make a name for themselves by making another intelligence construct, only to find it has insufficient distinction from IQ.
orisa2 9y ago
I'd also suggest that another factor is that the author assumed that his reader base would have basic statistical knowledge, which I'd suggest would not be true even among software engineers. Just erase any reference to distributions or averages and you'll see what most people see. This just adds to your points.
appleflaxen 9y ago
this was a fantastic critique. very well-reasoned; thank you.
imron 9y ago
> is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". He mentioned this only briefly (a bracketed clause 5 words long) as an example of science that the left ignores, because there does appear to be a difference in IQ between biological sexes [0], with current research suggesting the averages are similar, however there is a higher variation among males, leading to a higher proportion of men at the very high and very low ends of the spectrum. His comments on this were in no way used to infer one group was superior or more intelligent than the other. He was just pointing out that the left will ignore or deny science when it conflicts with ideology. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...

josteink 9y ago

> I'm sorry, what have our society and companies become? Afraid of angry, vocal and hysterical internet lynch mobs on social media. Whoever is most easily offended and cries loudest gets to decide. Being actually right, or god forbid principled, is clearly a thing of the past.

Daishiman 9y ago
Right. Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions. Oh right, there's no actual time in the history of humanity, with the exception of a select few people whose odious opinions everyone had to tolerate or else.
- piaste 9y ago
  > Please, remind me of a time in the past in which people could actually say whatever they wanted without repercussions. Strawman. No, there has probably never been such a time, at least for sufficiently creative uses of 'whatever'. But that doesn't mean everything is fine, and it doesn't mean freedom of expression and public discourse haven't visibly degraded since, for example, ten or twenty years ago.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    I remember when the Simpsons came out and when the same sort of people were complaining that cartoons were degrading our society's morals.

morgtheborg 9y ago

I agree with you the reaction is insane. But "polite memo" is not how anyone I know would describe this. Conclusions, particularly conclusions on sensitive subjects, baldly stated without a bunch of qualifiers don't tend to be considered polite. Sucks, but there it is.

scarmig 9y ago
"Polite" does not mean decorating every single sentence you write with a pile of qualifiers. It was a badly structured and badly argued document, and I disagree with most of its factual claims and its policy recommendations. But it in no way was impolite or in violation of Google's code of conduct, unless you think that having that viewpoint inherently makes you in violation and deserving of excommunication.
- morgtheborg 9y ago
  > in no way was impolite The reality is impolite is in the eye of the beholder (or culture). And in the Bay Area, that would be considered an impolite way of communicating considering the topic. I'm not applying a value judgement here.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. The one Pichai cited, >> It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." > I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. He said women have a harder time leading. That's a pretty big claim. None of his sources back it up, so it's just his opinion. At best, that makes him a legal risk for Google if he were involved in any hiring or promotional processes.

imron 9y ago
> He said women have a harder time leading. He said, in the context of Big-5 personality traits [0], that women on average skew higher for 'agreeableness' (a scientifically sound finding that has been replicated in cross-cultural studies), and that high agreeableness leads to having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. He's not saying women have a harder time at these things, he's saying people with a high agreeableness personality trait have a hard time at these things. His very next sentence states that while women have higher agreeableness at population-level averages, it would be wrong to just look at averages between genders because there is significant overlap in these traits across genders. However because it is seen by senior management as a problem for women, men with high agreeableness are excluded from training programs designed to help people with things such as negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading, he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations (not that they lack aptitude or ability for it), and that senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it, but because these training programs are only for women, they are excluding a large portion of men with the same traits, who are then denied access to similar corrective training. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > He's not saying women have a harder time at these things, he's saying people with a high agreeableness personality trait have a hard time at these things. Yes he does, he says it word for word. He says women, on average, have more of those traits. Then he draws the conclusion that because of these personality differences, that women have a harder time leading. That's not supported by any research he cites. > So, he's not saying that women have a harder time leading Yes, he does say that here: "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." > he's saying population-level averages in certain personality traits result in women initially being less well equipped to handle certain situations He specifically cites "leading". And, that claim is not backed by any research. > senior management have recognised this and implemented training programs specifically to correct for it That is not in the memo.