5 ms·

What's really interesting is that the author only became 'boiling' with rage when this socially-unaware moderator talked over the woman on the panel, not when h

What's really interesting is that the author only became 'boiling' with rage when this socially-unaware moderator talked over the woman on the panel, not when he talked over the other men. This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.

ainiriand 9y ago
Have you actually seen the video?
- obstacle1 9y ago
  Yes, that is how I know that the moderator talks over each panelist in turn throughout the 'conversation'. Do you have something to add to the discussion, or a question you wanted to ask of me that has some value? I'm not sure what you think your comment accomplishes here.
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    Maybe we've seen different videos. Just that.
    - king_phil 9y ago
      And maybe you don't have anything to add and just want to be passive-aggressive...
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    I recognize that different people have different perceptions so in no way I could go and say that something is not the way others perceive it. That is why I asked if you actually saw the video, I have a different conclusion after seeing it. I see that there is a problem, while you don't. You see it as normal, for me it is far from that. Probably you could be a bit more open-minded in regards of other people's perceptions and less dismissive to problems that you fail to see.
eckza 9y ago
This kind of argument is very akin to saying that we need a White History Month, and that #whitelivesmatter. STEM, as an institution, has historically not provided a level playing field for everyone. So when stuff like this happens, it stops being an alpha nerd issue, and starts becoming a social issue.
danso 9y ago
You've been able to watch enough of the video to discern that the moderator was an equal-opportunity-interruptor? Honest question, I just skimmed the video, and given that there were 5 men of similar age/race, I don't think even if I were in the audience I'd have a clear tally on how much each man got to speak, versus how easy it is to track how much/little opportunity the woman had. But the OP does assert that the moderator even acknowledged to Dr. Hubeny that she hadn't had much time,. Looking at the time period around 1 hour in, it does seem that he talks excessively while questioning Hubeny. But I didn't sit and watch all of the other interactions he had with the men. Just because the moderator had interrupted some of the other speakers does not mean the OP is wrong in her assessment that Hubeny was egregiously talked-over. I guess if you think the sexism claim is unwarranted, you could help skeptics by linking to timestamps where Holt gives other panelists the same intensity of talk-over he allegedly gave Hubeny. Edit: I'll play a little Devil's advocate to help the discussion. At 39:25, the moderator is going on length about...something. His cadence wavers as if inviting anyone to jump in, but he keeps on going: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s 30 seconds later, he finally asks why inflation has such skepticism and points to a panelist. The panelist tells a kind of rambling joke and as he rambles through the punchline, the moderator steps in and moves on to the next question: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s Arguably, though, you could say the moderator did the right thing because the panelist made a kind of weak joke, and the moderator had to interject to go onto the next topic. He ends up explaining, in a way that I imagine is more accessible to the audience, the 2 fields of thought, before pointing to another panelist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=40m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... This panelist is given a decent chunk of time to talk, almost 2 minutes, to go over string theory, etc. At 1:02:00, he pitches to Dr. Hubeny, and he gives her the same treatment in which he takes a good long time to set up the question and the scope that's understandable to the audience, while being a useful topic for her: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s At about 30 seconds in, as he's describing her position (presumably to the audience), she tries to clarify something , but he keeps talking. However, i think this is case of her misreading the moderator's pause as a cue. About 10 seconds later he finishes his train of thought and cedes the floor to her at around 1:03:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=1h2m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... But about 20 seconds later, as she's trying to assert how both theories are correct, the moderator jumps in say "So tell us about those 2 theories". https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s ...which is fine, because maybe he sensed the speaker was going to go too deep into details about the equivalence of the 2 models, when the audience would benefit from her describing the models. ...However, this interruption goes on for almost a minute, as he apparently decides to do the work of describing the theories. He eventually stops talking and reverts back to his prior prompt of "tell us a little bit about the 2 theories" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=1h4m5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... Hubeny appears ready to speak, but the moderator then goes on for 10 more seconds in which he tries to explain to her what he wants her to explain...and this is where Hubeny "giggles". But she's given about a full minute to talk, which seems reasonable. ---- I don't present the above points as complete evidence, it's what I landed on after randomly scrubbing in the period before the 60 minute mark. I think it's not out-of-line to say that the moderator is aggressive/over-eager in talking too much, and it may not just be sexism. But when you have a panel of 5 men and 1 woman and the woman has had little to speak for 60 minutes in, that's a bad time to go on an extended interruption as he did, as it becomes very noticable. That said, I don't want to say that the moderator is a total ass. He has 6 highly intelligent and possibly highly specialized people who don't have a unifying topic of debate, so it's incumbent upon him to not only define a scope that the audience can relate to, but aggressively move the discussion forward so that no one rambles too far into their rabbit hole.
watwut 9y ago
Aren't nerds supposed to be awkward and shy? Alpha nerd sounds like an oxymoron to me.
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  In tech: I don't like it + assertive = macho, bro, jock, alpha, etc I don't like it + meek = neckbeard, autistic, etc
rainbowmverse 9y ago
Two things can be true: 1: Alpha nerds are jerks to everyone. (true) 2: A specific instance of an alpha nerd being a jerk to someone can be because they're being sexist. (likely, based on the account I read)
throwaway91111 9y ago
What's really interesting is that every time sexism comes up there are volunteers eager to show it isn't sexism.
- obstacle1 9y ago
  It's almost like people are growing increasingly sick of being marginalized by identity politicians co-opting issues that really effect everyone. There needs to be a better strategy than "take a widespread social issue and pretend it only affects a subset of the population and only solve the issue for said subset" for producing legitimate social change, else pushback.
- 4bpp 9y ago
  Sure it's interesting in a certain sense, but is it problematic? The whole point of these sorts of incidents being publicised is to make an argument that men in STEM as a group treat women in STEM as a group unfairly and therefore intervention to improve the lot of the latter at the expense of the former is an ethical necessity. To insinuate, as you seem to be doing, that members of the former group stepping up to contest the case against them is further evidence of its validity is downright kafkaesque.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Maybe you would like to address the substance of the comment, otherwise your only argument is "you are arguing and you shouldn't".
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Substance? What does the comment bring up worth discussing? It's not clear the comment has any empathy for anyone involved but the asshole. What value could anyone gain from the comment? The game of "is it bigotry or just a terrible person" is never a fun game and leaves everyone bitter. One day it'll be nice to look at grey area and have the discussion center around what i'm looking at, rather than the fact it's grey. Finally, this particular problem—interrupting—tends to be a major issue for SV. It may not always be sexist, but i do think women experience this disproportionately. The above comment managed to avoid any recognition of this.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IncRnd 9y ago
This is an excellent point.
Certhas 9y ago
What's really interesting is that you felt the need to insist that there must be no sexism here because it happens to everyone, and that the person in the audience who described her and the audiences reaction is simply imagining the asymmetry. Fallacy of symmetry. Show me a sequence like what happens from 1:03 to 1:06 (the shout out) to her for the men in attendance. This is also not a case of women not speaking up. She repeatedly tries to answer, tries to interject and get a word in. I didn't watch the entire video, but I failed to see any comparable sequences. I think in general you're not wrong that there is more generally shitty behaviour than explicitly discriminating behaviour. The right way to go about this is to make a better atmosphere for everyone. We all benefit if the quiet person in the room gets heard, too, and if ideas are properly attributed. This is anyway something we should strive for, and it's great that it also improves the experience of people who were not socialized to inject themselves forcefully, or even socialized to not inject themselves forcefully. Because sexist ideas and behaviours persist in our society these people tend to be women more often, thus the shitty behaviour of alpha nerds hurts women more than men (even if they do them to everyone). That's also why I'm not a big fan of calling people out as sexist. This moderator was particularly egregious though.
- obstacle1 9y ago
  >there must be no sexism here because it happens to everyone, and that the person in the audience who described her and the audiences reaction is simply imagining the asymmetry. The talking-over happened to everyone, and there is no evidence that the specific talking-over of the female panelist was for reasons any different from the talking-overs of the male panelists. Therefore the talking-over is not itself evidence of sexism. In addition there are no other behaviors that indicate sexism specifically over the course of the video. So it is baffling how anyone can conclude that the talking-over of the female panelist was sexist, unless we are imagining things. The video is right there -- we don't need to rely on someone's written account, unreliable narrator and all that -- and I've given examples of similarly dominating moderator behavior in another comment.
watwut 9y ago
> This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No. I thought about this argument a bit and I disagree on multiple grounds. 1.) These fields used to be refuge for actual nerds - shy introverted awkward people who could not really cut it elsewhere. What changed and why do we think it is ok that it changed? 2.) How come that loudmouth with half baked ideas who don't really know what he is talking is somehow nerd? Nerd used to be people who knew their shit. Alpha nerd is literally a dude who is pretender - fake who wants to be seen as nerd for social status points. 3.) If this is true, then these fields can not be possible meritocracies. Good ideas from shy and introverted people will be ignored and loudmouths with bad ideas are rewarded. 4.) The moderator quality should be judged on moderation quality. If the audience is so annoyed that they clap over the interruption, then the moderator failed miserably. Such moderators should either learn or be replaced by people who can do it better. Panel members should not have to do anything special to not be talked over by moderator - it is literally his job to facilitate them talking.
- pacala 9y ago
  What changed: status and money. It will pass.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ainiriand 9y ago

Have you actually seen the video?

obstacle1 9y ago
Yes, that is how I know that the moderator talks over each panelist in turn throughout the 'conversation'. Do you have something to add to the discussion, or a question you wanted to ask of me that has some value? I'm not sure what you think your comment accomplishes here.
- ainiriand 9y ago
  Maybe we've seen different videos. Just that.
  - king_phil 9y ago
    And maybe you don't have anything to add and just want to be passive-aggressive...
- ainiriand 9y ago
  I recognize that different people have different perceptions so in no way I could go and say that something is not the way others perceive it. That is why I asked if you actually saw the video, I have a different conclusion after seeing it. I see that there is a problem, while you don't. You see it as normal, for me it is far from that. Probably you could be a bit more open-minded in regards of other people's perceptions and less dismissive to problems that you fail to see.

eckza 9y ago

This kind of argument is very akin to saying that we need a White History Month, and that #whitelivesmatter. STEM, as an institution, has historically not provided a level playing field for everyone. So when stuff like this happens, it stops being an alpha nerd issue, and starts becoming a social issue.

danso 9y ago

You've been able to watch enough of the video to discern that the moderator was an equal-opportunity-interruptor? Honest question, I just skimmed the video, and given that there were 5 men of similar age/race, I don't think even if I were in the audience I'd have a clear tally on how much each man got to speak, versus how easy it is to track how much/little opportunity the woman had. But the OP does assert that the moderator even acknowledged to Dr. Hubeny that she hadn't had much time,. Looking at the time period around 1 hour in, it does seem that he talks excessively while questioning Hubeny. But I didn't sit and watch all of the other interactions he had with the men. Just because the moderator had interrupted some of the other speakers does not mean the OP is wrong in her assessment that Hubeny was egregiously talked-over. I guess if you think the sexism claim is unwarranted, you could help skeptics by linking to timestamps where Holt gives other panelists the same intensity of talk-over he allegedly gave Hubeny. Edit: I'll play a little Devil's advocate to help the discussion. At 39:25, the moderator is going on length about...something. His cadence wavers as if inviting anyone to jump in, but he keeps on going: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s 30 seconds later, he finally asks why inflation has such skepticism and points to a panelist. The panelist tells a kind of rambling joke and as he rambles through the punchline, the moderator steps in and moves on to the next question: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s Arguably, though, you could say the moderator did the right thing because the panelist made a kind of weak joke, and the moderator had to interject to go onto the next topic. He ends up explaining, in a way that I imagine is more accessible to the audience, the 2 fields of thought, before pointing to another panelist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=40m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... This panelist is given a decent chunk of time to talk, almost 2 minutes, to go over string theory, etc. At 1:02:00, he pitches to Dr. Hubeny, and he gives her the same treatment in which he takes a good long time to set up the question and the scope that's understandable to the audience, while being a useful topic for her: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s At about 30 seconds in, as he's describing her position (presumably to the audience), she tries to clarify something , but he keeps talking. However, i think this is case of her misreading the moderator's pause as a cue. About 10 seconds later he finishes his train of thought and cedes the floor to her at around 1:03:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=1h2m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... But about 20 seconds later, as she's trying to assert how both theories are correct, the moderator jumps in say "So tell us about those 2 theories". https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s ...which is fine, because maybe he sensed the speaker was going to go too deep into details about the equivalence of the 2 models, when the audience would benefit from her describing the models. ...However, this interruption goes on for almost a minute, as he apparently decides to do the work of describing the theories. He eventually stops talking and reverts back to his prior prompt of "tell us a little bit about the 2 theories" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be&t=1h4m5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be... Hubeny appears ready to speak, but the moderator then goes on for 10 more seconds in which he tries to explain to her what he wants her to explain...and this is where Hubeny "giggles". But she's given about a full minute to talk, which seems reasonable. ---- I don't present the above points as complete evidence, it's what I landed on after randomly scrubbing in the period before the 60 minute mark. I think it's not out-of-line to say that the moderator is aggressive/over-eager in talking too much, and it may not just be sexism. But when you have a panel of 5 men and 1 woman and the woman has had little to speak for 60 minutes in, that's a bad time to go on an extended interruption as he did, as it becomes very noticable. That said, I don't want to say that the moderator is a total ass. He has 6 highly intelligent and possibly highly specialized people who don't have a unifying topic of debate, so it's incumbent upon him to not only define a scope that the audience can relate to, but aggressively move the discussion forward so that no one rambles too far into their rabbit hole.

watwut 9y ago

Aren't nerds supposed to be awkward and shy? Alpha nerd sounds like an oxymoron to me.

forgottenpass 9y ago
In tech: I don't like it + assertive = macho, bro, jock, alpha, etc I don't like it + meek = neckbeard, autistic, etc

rainbowmverse 9y ago

Two things can be true: 1: Alpha nerds are jerks to everyone. (true) 2: A specific instance of an alpha nerd being a jerk to someone can be because they're being sexist. (likely, based on the account I read)

throwaway91111 9y ago

What's really interesting is that every time sexism comes up there are volunteers eager to show it isn't sexism.

obstacle1 9y ago
It's almost like people are growing increasingly sick of being marginalized by identity politicians co-opting issues that really effect everyone. There needs to be a better strategy than "take a widespread social issue and pretend it only affects a subset of the population and only solve the issue for said subset" for producing legitimate social change, else pushback.
4bpp 9y ago
Sure it's interesting in a certain sense, but is it problematic? The whole point of these sorts of incidents being publicised is to make an argument that men in STEM as a group treat women in STEM as a group unfairly and therefore intervention to improve the lot of the latter at the expense of the former is an ethical necessity. To insinuate, as you seem to be doing, that members of the former group stepping up to contest the case against them is further evidence of its validity is downright kafkaesque.
andrepd 9y ago
Maybe you would like to address the substance of the comment, otherwise your only argument is "you are arguing and you shouldn't".
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Substance? What does the comment bring up worth discussing? It's not clear the comment has any empathy for anyone involved but the asshole. What value could anyone gain from the comment? The game of "is it bigotry or just a terrible person" is never a fun game and leaves everyone bitter. One day it'll be nice to look at grey area and have the discussion center around what i'm looking at, rather than the fact it's grey. Finally, this particular problem—interrupting—tends to be a major issue for SV. It may not always be sexist, but i do think women experience this disproportionately. The above comment managed to avoid any recognition of this.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

IncRnd 9y ago

This is an excellent point.

Certhas 9y ago

What's really interesting is that you felt the need to insist that there must be no sexism here because it happens to everyone, and that the person in the audience who described her and the audiences reaction is simply imagining the asymmetry. Fallacy of symmetry. Show me a sequence like what happens from 1:03 to 1:06 (the shout out) to her for the men in attendance. This is also not a case of women not speaking up. She repeatedly tries to answer, tries to interject and get a word in. I didn't watch the entire video, but I failed to see any comparable sequences. I think in general you're not wrong that there is more generally shitty behaviour than explicitly discriminating behaviour. The right way to go about this is to make a better atmosphere for everyone. We all benefit if the quiet person in the room gets heard, too, and if ideas are properly attributed. This is anyway something we should strive for, and it's great that it also improves the experience of people who were not socialized to inject themselves forcefully, or even socialized to not inject themselves forcefully. Because sexist ideas and behaviours persist in our society these people tend to be women more often, thus the shitty behaviour of alpha nerds hurts women more than men (even if they do them to everyone). That's also why I'm not a big fan of calling people out as sexist. This moderator was particularly egregious though.

obstacle1 9y ago
>there must be no sexism here because it happens to everyone, and that the person in the audience who described her and the audiences reaction is simply imagining the asymmetry. The talking-over happened to everyone, and there is no evidence that the specific talking-over of the female panelist was for reasons any different from the talking-overs of the male panelists. Therefore the talking-over is not itself evidence of sexism. In addition there are no other behaviors that indicate sexism specifically over the course of the video. So it is baffling how anyone can conclude that the talking-over of the female panelist was sexist, unless we are imagining things. The video is right there -- we don't need to rely on someone's written account, unreliable narrator and all that -- and I've given examples of similarly dominating moderator behavior in another comment.

watwut 9y ago

> This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No. I thought about this argument a bit and I disagree on multiple grounds. 1.) These fields used to be refuge for actual nerds - shy introverted awkward people who could not really cut it elsewhere. What changed and why do we think it is ok that it changed? 2.) How come that loudmouth with half baked ideas who don't really know what he is talking is somehow nerd? Nerd used to be people who knew their shit. Alpha nerd is literally a dude who is pretender - fake who wants to be seen as nerd for social status points. 3.) If this is true, then these fields can not be possible meritocracies. Good ideas from shy and introverted people will be ignored and loudmouths with bad ideas are rewarded. 4.) The moderator quality should be judged on moderation quality. If the audience is so annoyed that they clap over the interruption, then the moderator failed miserably. Such moderators should either learn or be replaced by people who can do it better. Panel members should not have to do anything special to not be talked over by moderator - it is literally his job to facilitate them talking.

pacala 9y ago
What changed: status and money. It will pass.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]