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.

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.

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_intelligenc...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

* harassment and intimidation

* calling for harasser to be fired

* firing harasser

All three behaviors fall under the broad umbrella of harassment and intimidation. Clearly the first is a fireable behavior, and the last is not a fireable behavior.

The middle one certainly stands somewhere between. I suppose it's possible that if the author was exonerated, the middle group may be deemed as having participated in a firing offense?

That would be interesting research to review publicly. But it also reframes the picture, changing it from "some groups are discriminated against and therefore we need diversity focus" to "we need to start discriminating in order to increase diversity, because this leads to better-performing teams".

> ...we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct

As if admitting that currently there are no avenues for open discussion on highly controversial topics such as this one or at least none that do not clash with the Code of Conduct.

It's pretty damn simple.

Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?

It's also not a thing that the author of the memo stated. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594

I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.

Sorry, but unless you are some leading researcher in a related field, your "thoughts" doesn't count for much and you should provide cited counter claims to be taken seriously. Without this, it's all just an emotional reaction and doesn't contribute anything of value to a meaningful discussion.

For example, the author of the memo presents some citations to back up the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that might explain why more men than women choose to work in tech. I don't find that idea controversial.

However, none of the citations provide any evidence that the degree of biological difference between the male and female population is sufficient to explain the relative gender balance we see in tech.

I don't need to be an expert to notice the lack of evidence for that part of the argument and conclude that the argument is poorly made.

It is possible that such evidence does exist and I would be interested to see it but that would not change that fact that this memo, with its cited evidence, failed to make that case.

Are these numbers available to public somewhere?

I'm asking because I would dearly want to find comprehensive data. When I've done some of my own research, I have run into sets of studies, which all agree on one thing: more diverse groups get better results. The snag is that these studies disagree - wildly - with the magnitude of the effect. Some claim maybe 2% improvement. Some others claim up to ~30%. Yet others somewhere inbetween.

The figures also fluctuate quite a bit over time. Study from 2008/2009 shows numbers that are almost entirely unrelated to a study from 2014/2015. Some studies claim that gender diversity alone bears very little benefit[ß], and other studies from the same time come out with results that sort of imply you will need cultural diversity for notable results.

But by far the worst piece of news is that the measured and/or recorded numbers appear to be geographically distinct. Results from US studies are different from those in UK, which in turn differ from mainland Europe studies. That only raises more questions. Such as...

- are the numbers consistently different across regions?

- ... across continents?

- ... across cultures?

- what is the measured effect between "just" gender diverse and culturally diverse groups?

- do age groups matter?

... and so on. I genuinely would like to know. (For the record, and you can check this from my earlier posts as well: I am firmly in the camp who believe that diversity is beneficial.)

N.B. The most recent study I know of is the McKinsey report from 2015.[0]

---

ß: I can dig out the research articles if there's interest. I have some of them sort of easily accessible.

0: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-...

But as a developer, my requirements are set by project managers (50% women in my experience), the design and marketing is done by a diverse team, testing is done by other people (or end-users, sigh); so developers are "only" concerned with the actual implementation. Consequently, I don't find it intuitive that more diversity (of gender/ethnicity) would help my team.

Do developers in other companies or countries (Germany here) have wider responsibilities, and thus, diversity is more important? Can engineers at Facebook or Google write user-facing features on a whim? (The terrible mic drop Gmail gimmick comes to mind...) Could that explain the difference in how much teams benefit from diversity?

Sadly no :( - I'm fully aware that the studies in this field mostly focus on financial outcomes, and because they are commissioned by consulting/recruiting agencies, they are of course targeting the management group. That's one of the reasons I would love to see the numbers from Google's internal research.

As for this:

> Most anecdotes I've read about the benefits of diversity boil down to "if only we'd had a <minority> on the team [...]

I am not sure whether I should be offended or merely aghast. From the tone you used, it feels like you have witnessed something more akin box-ticking than strategy, cargo-culting over rationality. I know my reasons are different but I suspect they could be equally selfish.

1. In my experience, women who stay in tech tend to be pretty damn good. Even if we ignored all other factors, it would be rational from purely talent-acquisition point of view to target female engineers in hiring. In addition, women often have greater capacity for empathy and thus can become a force multiplier in practically any team.

2. Constructive arguments from different viewpoints can only make us stronger. Things I am blind to can be spotted by someone else. Things my usual peer group is blind to can be spotted by persons from different peer group(s). But most importantly - things that are obvious to people who share my background can be pointed out and questioned by people whose backgrounds are different.

The thing I, as an engineer, worry about is myopia.

> as a developer, my requirements are set by project managers (50% women in my experience)

That is an interesting observation. Do you think that is due to self-selection or external factors? Also: if PM roles can have a 50/50 gender split, does that mean that women are more likely to seek promotions that lead to PM type positions?

> Do developers in other companies or countries (Germany here) have wider responsibilities, and thus, diversity is more important?

I think it depends less on the country and more on the company [or national?] culture. In engineering driven organisations, definitely. In a rigid hierarchy with nothing-but-top-down approach, probably less so. But then again, in the light of what I know, the latter category should benefit from diversity in their upper management. Where else would the alternate viewpoints come from?

And finally, I'm going to pick this one up separately:

> Consequently, I don't find it intuitive that more diversity (of gender/ethnicity) would help my team.

I'm sorry for you. But also, I am glad that you brought this up. You have just highlighted that MY experience and view of diversity can be irrational or plain odd to someone from a different cultural environment. For that - thank you.

I guess my summary sounded a little harsh. Here's a typical example[1]:

>> When the employees of an organization better represent their users and desired users, they will build more effectively for those groups. When YouTube’s almost entirely right-handed developer team built the iOS app without considering how left-handed people would use it, for example, 5% to 10% of videos were uploaded upside down as a result. This factor may be especially relevant for leaders of consumer tech companies.

I have heard of/read similar anecdotes about various groups of people that certainly have different perspectives, but it always seems extremely anecdotal to me.

This study sounds more promising in my opinion[2]:

>> When a black person presented a dissenting perspective to a group of whites, the perspective was perceived as more novel and led to broader thinking and consideration of alternatives than when a white person introduced that same dissenting perspective. The lesson: when we hear dissent from someone who is different from us, it provokes more thought than when it comes from someone who looks like us.

> That is an interesting observation.

I've tried to verify that my experience wasn't a complete outlier; it seems that PMs really have a more balanced gender ratio than engineers: https://www.knowledgetrain.co.uk/resources/careers/women-in-...

> Also: if PM roles can have a 50/50 gender split, does that mean that women are more likely to seek promotions that lead to PM type positions?

...but now I realise that we must work for very different companies/clients. I don't see project management as a promotion from engineering - in my experience, it's a completely separate career path, just like design. Also, since I am a freelancer, my clients' offices are often full of other freelancers, and promotions aren't really a thing.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2015/07/21/why... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak...

Consider this, if diversity hiring yields better individual and group performance then this implies that different races and genders perform better at certain skills, and that taken in aggregate, this leads to measurable performance increases overall at the individual and group level.

After all, if there was no difference across gender or race, then it would make no difference whether you had 100% white male or 100% asian female, or any other combination of different demographics.

I'm sure you have sources that disprove his sources. How about you post them.

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that we won't get access to it.

It may as well be an argument from authority - because that is what it is. One cannot hide behind "but the data show" and then refuse to show the data. That is not how science works and we shouldn't accept it for a second from anyone.

This is a well-known, well-researched fact of organizational psychology. Are you guys really this stupid? Think about it from a problem-solving perspective, in terms of the solutions individuals and groups will come up with.

Sexism, racism, and discrimination in general doesn't benefit anyone but the wealthiest few, and only if they're really, really stupid.

In order to promote tolerance you have to shut down and remove the people who support intolerance. Firing this guy is clearly in line with that mission and improving productivity.

We learn this in grade school, are you all foreigners or something? Or has American education really been gutted...