4 ms·

Politics. Science is always better accepted when it conforms or is spun to conform to the current zeitgeist. So it with bad science, no science and pull out of

Politics. Science is always better accepted when it conforms or is spun to conform to the current zeitgeist. So it with bad science, no science and pull out of someone's ass (pseudo) science. And right now the zeitgeist in tech is to increase diversity.

douche 11y ago
Shh, you can't possibly suggest that different people might have the slightest difference of innate aptitudes! That's super-extra-double-badthink! You don't want to be the subject of the next Two Minutes Hate?
SolaceQuantum 11y ago
By this rhetorical implication, you're saying that not only are current demographics in tech (majority male, white, upper middle class) that way because those demographics are more skilled than other demographics, but also that any studies implying as such as stomped out by political pseudoscience proposing less effective diversity measures. And of course, I can't ask you for a source that studies are getting stomped out by political pseudoscience, because those sources will also have been stomped out. So I should instead ask you: how did you get this impression?
- 8127612981 11y ago
  Just look at the differences inside your purportedly "privileged" "white male" group if you aren't capable of suppressing your ideologies otherwise. In fact, all studies should do so to avoid endless blathering on the Internet.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    I do apologize. I didn't imply any privilege here and apologize if I came off as trying to treat this is a privilege perspective. My confusion comes from the rhetorical implication that current demographics in computer science are that way because those demographics are somehow just better at it than others, and also that any proof of this us stomped out by political pseudoscience. I'm asking where gp gets this impression. I'm also curious what you mean by 'all studies should do so'. Do what, exactly? Analyze the demographic of white heterosexual upper middle class differently? I'm sure that might be interesting, but it's already a very specific demographic that fits class, sexuality, race, and gender identity. What other categories are being neglected that are skewing the view of demographic majorities in the technology industry?
- venomsnake 11y ago
  I was explaining the OP why there is spin. And why spin is taking that shape. And that was all there was to my post. But since you are playing Tipper Gore to my Dee Snider: Why I get that impression - because science is also political. As are the people that do it, write for it, fund it and so on. We people are stupid, biased, and conformist. We fall in line. We do what will bring us money or social capital. We twist our reality to fit the desired outcome. We shred to pieces papers we disagree with, but only skim the one that confirm out initial assumption. We love to offer post facts justification how we were right all along. I am from former communist country - I know how whipping science and arts to fit the party line is done. I have seen it. In the west it is not different just subtler. People are more afraid of being on the wrong side of society, than being wrong. That is how the world works. And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    >And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech. You're correct there. I was under the impression one would be focusing mostly in the oh so legendary Silicon valley. Other than that, thanks for your generosity with your perspective. If I could have another question, what do you consider the warning signs of a psesudoscience or bad science being used for political gain? Also, how do you tell when a methodology is found flawed because of political gain vs a methodology is found flawed because it is flawed and in bad science?
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Here is a thought experiment - lets publish two bogus papers. One that claims the holocaust victims are twice as high as the current accepted consensus, and one that claims that the victims are twice as low. If science was apolitical they both would be laughed away. My opinion is that in the real world - both will gain acceptance at the fringes, but while one of the papers will just be burried and ignored, the other will be career ending move and will be shredded, and careers will be launched disproving it. Same will be with any paper that perpetuates the white dominance narative and tries to disprove it. There are bigger penalties in going in one of the possible directions of the accepted truth. So we have built in conformation and confirmation bias in system. And the antivaxer paper is stellar example of using pseudoscience for political gain. With diversity in tech - you lose nothing by spinning any fact into pro diversity argument.
- MustardTiger 11y ago
  >By this rhetorical implication, you're saying that not only are current demographics in tech (majority male, white, upper middle class) That isn't even the current demographic. Indian and Chinese people are more disproportionately represented than white people are.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    Even if you normalise for the relative population of white vs ethnic Chinese and Indian people? I'd be really surprised if that was the case and I'd like to see your data, please.

douche 11y ago

Shh, you can't possibly suggest that different people might have the slightest difference of innate aptitudes! That's super-extra-double-badthink! You don't want to be the subject of the next Two Minutes Hate?

SolaceQuantum 11y ago

By this rhetorical implication, you're saying that not only are current demographics in tech (majority male, white, upper middle class) that way because those demographics are more skilled than other demographics, but also that any studies implying as such as stomped out by political pseudoscience proposing less effective diversity measures. And of course, I can't ask you for a source that studies are getting stomped out by political pseudoscience, because those sources will also have been stomped out. So I should instead ask you: how did you get this impression?

8127612981 11y ago
Just look at the differences inside your purportedly "privileged" "white male" group if you aren't capable of suppressing your ideologies otherwise. In fact, all studies should do so to avoid endless blathering on the Internet.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  I do apologize. I didn't imply any privilege here and apologize if I came off as trying to treat this is a privilege perspective. My confusion comes from the rhetorical implication that current demographics in computer science are that way because those demographics are somehow just better at it than others, and also that any proof of this us stomped out by political pseudoscience. I'm asking where gp gets this impression. I'm also curious what you mean by 'all studies should do so'. Do what, exactly? Analyze the demographic of white heterosexual upper middle class differently? I'm sure that might be interesting, but it's already a very specific demographic that fits class, sexuality, race, and gender identity. What other categories are being neglected that are skewing the view of demographic majorities in the technology industry?
venomsnake 11y ago
I was explaining the OP why there is spin. And why spin is taking that shape. And that was all there was to my post. But since you are playing Tipper Gore to my Dee Snider: Why I get that impression - because science is also political. As are the people that do it, write for it, fund it and so on. We people are stupid, biased, and conformist. We fall in line. We do what will bring us money or social capital. We twist our reality to fit the desired outcome. We shred to pieces papers we disagree with, but only skim the one that confirm out initial assumption. We love to offer post facts justification how we were right all along. I am from former communist country - I know how whipping science and arts to fit the party line is done. I have seen it. In the west it is not different just subtler. People are more afraid of being on the wrong side of society, than being wrong. That is how the world works. And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  >And with tech powerhouses like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea and India that both produce, utilize domestically and export a lot of tech talent - I am not sure how white is tech. You're correct there. I was under the impression one would be focusing mostly in the oh so legendary Silicon valley. Other than that, thanks for your generosity with your perspective. If I could have another question, what do you consider the warning signs of a psesudoscience or bad science being used for political gain? Also, how do you tell when a methodology is found flawed because of political gain vs a methodology is found flawed because it is flawed and in bad science?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Here is a thought experiment - lets publish two bogus papers. One that claims the holocaust victims are twice as high as the current accepted consensus, and one that claims that the victims are twice as low. If science was apolitical they both would be laughed away. My opinion is that in the real world - both will gain acceptance at the fringes, but while one of the papers will just be burried and ignored, the other will be career ending move and will be shredded, and careers will be launched disproving it. Same will be with any paper that perpetuates the white dominance narative and tries to disprove it. There are bigger penalties in going in one of the possible directions of the accepted truth. So we have built in conformation and confirmation bias in system. And the antivaxer paper is stellar example of using pseudoscience for political gain. With diversity in tech - you lose nothing by spinning any fact into pro diversity argument.
MustardTiger 11y ago
>By this rhetorical implication, you're saying that not only are current demographics in tech (majority male, white, upper middle class) That isn't even the current demographic. Indian and Chinese people are more disproportionately represented than white people are.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  Even if you normalise for the relative population of white vs ethnic Chinese and Indian people? I'd be really surprised if that was the case and I'd like to see your data, please.