7 ms·

In my personal estimation as someone who actually has actually read these new rules and is currently working under them, these policy changes represent little s

by jfasi 8y ago

In my personal estimation as someone who actually has actually read these new rules and is currently working under them, these policy changes represent little substantive change from the previous policy. I won't be quoting the text directly because I don't think it's public, but most of what was changed represents a codification of practices that were already floating around as best-practices. They also added concrete examples of what constitutes harassment, all of which strike me as things that any reasonable person would actually consider harassment. Nowhere do I see anything that might be construed as "curtailing employee debate." All of which is to say how surprised and thrown off I am by this article: it and previous ones [1] try to portray Google as a place that's roiled by political fighting where the leaders are struggling to keep control over a irresponsible and politically radical workforce. Under this narrative these new policies are just the newest, desperate attempt to restore order to the snowflake cagematch that is Google. The reality, at least as far as I and practically everyone I've spoken to is concerned, is the exact opposite: people share their views openly, a wide range of opinions are respectfully shared, most people have the right to get into and stay out of political discussions, and the institution does the best it can to set the boundaries of what is appropriate at work while permitting a otherwise anything-goes approach. If this reality is anywhere close to being accurate, the picture this article paints is simply nonsensical. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-vs-google-how-nonstop-political-arguments-rule-its-workplace-1525190574 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-vs-google-how-nonstop-po...

ryanobjc 8y ago
i agree with everything written here. The culture articles on the wsj are bizzare. I think they can be chalked up to good old journalism selective sources (happy employees aren’t running to tell all), combined with a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” belief. And that’s me being as charitable as possible. The internal experience just doesn’t match what they’re writing.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  What if the unhappy employees are honestly relating their experience? What if you can openly share your opinions, so long as it's in a rather narrow range of acceptable opinions? What if some of those "unacceptable" opinions happen to be held by scientific researchers who maintain a moderate position that both nature and nurture is involved in gender differences? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 How would that differ from the anti-evolution groupthink I'd expect to find at certain megachurches?
  - ryanobjc 8y ago
    Again, selection bias. Not every employee is going to be happy at every company. And as I noted in a different comment, there are axioms at companies you just won’t be fruitful arguing against. That’s a hard fact of working for someone else. As for the veiled Damore references, the problem isn’t the discussion that men and women are different in a variety of ways, the problem is he was using it as a justification to argue that his female coworkers didn’t meet the same hiring bar, and that in general some just don’t make better engineers. Jumping from “there are differences” (which no one disagrees with!) to women shouldn’t be engineers is a huge leap. One filled with bogus arguments, misreading studies (one of the study authors damore quoted, came out and said that he drew the incorrect conclusion from it.). His essay was motivated reasoning, had tons of fallacies (commonly, the map isn’t the territory, and the world isn’t Boolean logic). As someone who just had a baby, you would not believe how much gender patterning happens from age 0. Even before they are born, do you want the blue or pink elastic band for holding the fetal heart monitor on? Clothes choices, word choices. It’s difficult to tease this out. Additionally, we know the human body is very flexible and adaptable. You can a introduce hormones to a xy and watch it grow secondary sex characteristics. To say that the research is in and we know anything with any certainty is hubris of the highest order. And this is all before we stop to consider how we want to build the world? Why bother with wheel chairs and ramps? We frequently reject naturalistic arguments when it comes to universal human rights. I don’t see why this is any different. And on a final note, it seems like people think that we are now in a world of equal oppertunity and all we’re doing now is attempting to create equal outcome. I invite you to really reflect and consider, are you sure we have equal oppertunity? Are you sure? If you are, then you’d be willing to switch places with a poor black woman, because you’d still end up where you are now right?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      the problem is he was using it as a justification to argue that his female coworkers didn’t meet the same hiring bar, and that in general some just don’t make better engineers That's not how I interpreted his memo, and I think the widespread emotionally wrought interpretation of his memo in that fashion reveals virulent groupthink. Didn't a large number of women not go to work because of induced "feels?" You can a introduce hormones to a xy and watch it grow secondary sex characteristics. That's strong evidence for at least a partial physiological basis of gender. To say that the research is in and we know anything with any certainty is hubris of the highest order. Then why would holding an opinion evoke such a strong response? I invite you to really reflect and consider, are you sure we have equal oppertunity? Are you sure? If you are, then you’d be willing to switch places with a poor black woman, because you’d still end up where you are now right? I dated a creole woman for 9 years and asked her to marry me. This last paragraph of yours speaks for itself, in terms of the presence or absence of ideological groupthink. If that poor black woman had the same cultural upbringing as my ex-girlfriend's maternal grandmother, then sure, why not?
stcredzero 8y ago
try to portray Google as a place that's roiled by political fighting where the leaders are struggling to keep control over a irresponsible and politically radical workforce What of Google managers quoted in media vehemently saying they wouldn't hire people harboring certain political positions? Why is it that so many of my acquaintances who work at Google pig-piled James Damore over his professional competence, despite none of them being in a position to have any idea about that? All of this smacks of a degree of ideological groupthink I would label as "virulent." What you are saying would still fit if the overwhelming majority of Google had a large political skew and subscribed to a particular ideological groupthink. The majority would feel that, "people share their views openly, a wide range of opinions are respectfully shared, most people have the right to get into and stay out of political discussions," since conversations about things everyone agrees with can only go so far without an "enemy" who disagrees. A minority in that situation would still feel oppressed. It's how well minorities are treated which is the true indication of how open and benevolent an organization is.
- jfasi 8y ago
  > What of Google managers quoted in media vehemently saying they wouldn't hire people harboring certain political positions? I respond that this is inconsistent with both stated policies and established practice, and such managers can and should be targeted to answer for their bias and have it corrected. I would also respond that if a journalist with an axe to grind were to search hard enough and interview enough people, they're bound to find someone they can put on a pedestal and point to saying "look at how corrupt these people are!" If anything, a person believing this sort of anecdote about an organization says more about the believer than the organization in question. > Why is it that so many of my acquaintances who work at Google pig-piled James Damore over his professional competence, despite none of them being in a position to have any idea about that? That does sound unfair: Damore was a senior engineer, which not a title that's given out lightly. Again, though, peoples' possibly unfair commentary on his professional abilities says nothing about the quality of discourse in the company. And again, one's willingness to balloon these sorts of individual anecdotes into indictments of an organization as a whole say more about the person doing the indicting than the organization in question.
jtmcmc 8y ago
because that doesn't sell. I'm not at google but I'm at a bay area tech startup. I'm in slack channels around things ranging from learning to speak japanese and korean, keto diets, coffee discussions, lgbt issues, politics (aside from my groups on work specific things). I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's
- whatok 8y ago
  > I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's I think part of the problem with the forced socialization at a lot of these companies is that it creates cliques that in turn introduce a lot of bias into the workplace. If I'm not interested in whatever you want to discuss but a majority of others are, this can potentially have a negative effect on how I'm perceived and also compensated/promoted while having zero to do with my actual work product. After work socialization involving drinking is another example. If my lifestyle for whatever reason does not accommodate that, I might be seen as not a team player, no fun, etc.
- aestetix 8y ago
  > I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's One response to this could be simple: you're there to work, not to discuss X, where X is something not related to work. Nobody is preventing you from finding a common interest with a coworker and chatting about it outside of work hours, but if it interferes with actual work, which, based on these lawsuits, seems to be happening, then it probably shouldn't be discussed during work hours. Another larger issue here is that a lot of these tech companies have "flexible" hours, which ultimately means people never leave work. Sort of like the lie of "unlimited" vacation days :)
panarky 8y ago
This article: http://archive.is/0ht0I http://archive.is/0ht0I Your link: http://archive.is/Sa5OC http://archive.is/Sa5OC
minimaxir 8y ago
The Google Comms Twitter account officially released the rules: https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1012040562713620480 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1012040562713620480

by jfasi 8y ago

ryanobjc 8y ago

i agree with everything written here. The culture articles on the wsj are bizzare. I think they can be chalked up to good old journalism selective sources (happy employees aren’t running to tell all), combined with a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” belief. And that’s me being as charitable as possible. The internal experience just doesn’t match what they’re writing.

stcredzero 8y ago
What if the unhappy employees are honestly relating their experience? What if you can openly share your opinions, so long as it's in a rather narrow range of acceptable opinions? What if some of those "unacceptable" opinions happen to be held by scientific researchers who maintain a moderate position that both nature and nurture is involved in gender differences? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 How would that differ from the anti-evolution groupthink I'd expect to find at certain megachurches?
- ryanobjc 8y ago
  Again, selection bias. Not every employee is going to be happy at every company. And as I noted in a different comment, there are axioms at companies you just won’t be fruitful arguing against. That’s a hard fact of working for someone else. As for the veiled Damore references, the problem isn’t the discussion that men and women are different in a variety of ways, the problem is he was using it as a justification to argue that his female coworkers didn’t meet the same hiring bar, and that in general some just don’t make better engineers. Jumping from “there are differences” (which no one disagrees with!) to women shouldn’t be engineers is a huge leap. One filled with bogus arguments, misreading studies (one of the study authors damore quoted, came out and said that he drew the incorrect conclusion from it.). His essay was motivated reasoning, had tons of fallacies (commonly, the map isn’t the territory, and the world isn’t Boolean logic). As someone who just had a baby, you would not believe how much gender patterning happens from age 0. Even before they are born, do you want the blue or pink elastic band for holding the fetal heart monitor on? Clothes choices, word choices. It’s difficult to tease this out. Additionally, we know the human body is very flexible and adaptable. You can a introduce hormones to a xy and watch it grow secondary sex characteristics. To say that the research is in and we know anything with any certainty is hubris of the highest order. And this is all before we stop to consider how we want to build the world? Why bother with wheel chairs and ramps? We frequently reject naturalistic arguments when it comes to universal human rights. I don’t see why this is any different. And on a final note, it seems like people think that we are now in a world of equal oppertunity and all we’re doing now is attempting to create equal outcome. I invite you to really reflect and consider, are you sure we have equal oppertunity? Are you sure? If you are, then you’d be willing to switch places with a poor black woman, because you’d still end up where you are now right?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    the problem is he was using it as a justification to argue that his female coworkers didn’t meet the same hiring bar, and that in general some just don’t make better engineers That's not how I interpreted his memo, and I think the widespread emotionally wrought interpretation of his memo in that fashion reveals virulent groupthink. Didn't a large number of women not go to work because of induced "feels?" You can a introduce hormones to a xy and watch it grow secondary sex characteristics. That's strong evidence for at least a partial physiological basis of gender. To say that the research is in and we know anything with any certainty is hubris of the highest order. Then why would holding an opinion evoke such a strong response? I invite you to really reflect and consider, are you sure we have equal oppertunity? Are you sure? If you are, then you’d be willing to switch places with a poor black woman, because you’d still end up where you are now right? I dated a creole woman for 9 years and asked her to marry me. This last paragraph of yours speaks for itself, in terms of the presence or absence of ideological groupthink. If that poor black woman had the same cultural upbringing as my ex-girlfriend's maternal grandmother, then sure, why not?

stcredzero 8y ago

try to portray Google as a place that's roiled by political fighting where the leaders are struggling to keep control over a irresponsible and politically radical workforce What of Google managers quoted in media vehemently saying they wouldn't hire people harboring certain political positions? Why is it that so many of my acquaintances who work at Google pig-piled James Damore over his professional competence, despite none of them being in a position to have any idea about that? All of this smacks of a degree of ideological groupthink I would label as "virulent." What you are saying would still fit if the overwhelming majority of Google had a large political skew and subscribed to a particular ideological groupthink. The majority would feel that, "people share their views openly, a wide range of opinions are respectfully shared, most people have the right to get into and stay out of political discussions," since conversations about things everyone agrees with can only go so far without an "enemy" who disagrees. A minority in that situation would still feel oppressed. It's how well minorities are treated which is the true indication of how open and benevolent an organization is.

jfasi 8y ago
> What of Google managers quoted in media vehemently saying they wouldn't hire people harboring certain political positions? I respond that this is inconsistent with both stated policies and established practice, and such managers can and should be targeted to answer for their bias and have it corrected. I would also respond that if a journalist with an axe to grind were to search hard enough and interview enough people, they're bound to find someone they can put on a pedestal and point to saying "look at how corrupt these people are!" If anything, a person believing this sort of anecdote about an organization says more about the believer than the organization in question. > Why is it that so many of my acquaintances who work at Google pig-piled James Damore over his professional competence, despite none of them being in a position to have any idea about that? That does sound unfair: Damore was a senior engineer, which not a title that's given out lightly. Again, though, peoples' possibly unfair commentary on his professional abilities says nothing about the quality of discourse in the company. And again, one's willingness to balloon these sorts of individual anecdotes into indictments of an organization as a whole say more about the person doing the indicting than the organization in question.

jtmcmc 8y ago

because that doesn't sell. I'm not at google but I'm at a bay area tech startup. I'm in slack channels around things ranging from learning to speak japanese and korean, keto diets, coffee discussions, lgbt issues, politics (aside from my groups on work specific things). I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's

whatok 8y ago
> I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's I think part of the problem with the forced socialization at a lot of these companies is that it creates cliques that in turn introduce a lot of bias into the workplace. If I'm not interested in whatever you want to discuss but a majority of others are, this can potentially have a negative effect on how I'm perceived and also compensated/promoted while having zero to do with my actual work product. After work socialization involving drinking is another example. If my lifestyle for whatever reason does not accommodate that, I might be seen as not a team player, no fun, etc.
aestetix 8y ago
> I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would expect - I imagine very much like google's One response to this could be simple: you're there to work, not to discuss X, where X is something not related to work. Nobody is preventing you from finding a common interest with a coworker and chatting about it outside of work hours, but if it interferes with actual work, which, based on these lawsuits, seems to be happening, then it probably shouldn't be discussed during work hours. Another larger issue here is that a lot of these tech companies have "flexible" hours, which ultimately means people never leave work. Sort of like the lie of "unlimited" vacation days :)

panarky 8y ago

This article: http://archive.is/0ht0I http://archive.is/0ht0I Your link: http://archive.is/Sa5OC http://archive.is/Sa5OC

minimaxir 8y ago

The Google Comms Twitter account officially released the rules: https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1012040562713620480 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1012040562713620480