3 ms·
The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems the
by blusterXY 9y ago
The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.
- sigmar 9y agoHe doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.
- roenxi 9y agoHe didn't say that - he said "Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts". That might be wrong. I think using emotions as a guide reason can work, sometimes very well. It doesn't link anything to women - women can be disengaged and men can be emotional in the ordinary course of their day.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- slavak 9y agoHe cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...