3 ms·

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 person

by nowo 9y ago

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Because it isn't relevant. The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting some differences between men and women, but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.

blusterXY 9y ago
What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: "The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy." The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a certain point, people are either educated or ignorant. And ignorance may be bliss, but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc.
- andkon 9y ago
  You totally missed the point. So here it is again: even if all the research he cites is real and well-supported, he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites. There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science. There's also no support for his conclusion that Google therefore doesn't have an obligation to improve diversity measures (which, as a normative claim, can't be negated by citing scientific research). And above all, there's zero support for his positive claim that Google has a real obligation to adopt a definition of diversity that benefits him and not women, nor that Google has an obligation to defend and make accommodations for his (abhorrent) opinions.
  - blusterXY 9y ago
    Thank you for your (abhorrent) attempt at belittling someone who is trying to educate you about what is actually mainstream science: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812017168 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201... As for the rest of your comment, it perfectly illustrates my comment above about critics having no clue what this guy is saying. At the very minimum, you are dead wrong to claim the author does not say that diversity is important and that Google should not address it. He simply says it should be addressed in non-discriminatory ways, something any sensible reader should have noticed had they read the ENTIRE SECTION he included titled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". And with that, I'm jumping out of this discussion: it pollutes the HN discussion section to have to repeatedly state what the article under discussion actually says.
    - comex 9y ago
      The parent’s comment, which you claim is “abhorrent” and ignoring science, states: > There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science. Please explain where in either of your sources it says that women should be underrepresented in STEM and computer science - at all (why not the other way around?), let alone to anywhere near the extent seen today. Hint: nowhere. Getting to there from personality quizzes is the unsubstantiated logical leap the parent was talking about.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > ...he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites Where does he do that? If I recall correctly, he mostly wanted to discuss the company culture. There were policies that were mentioned, but only to support his position that the company culture was supported by company policy.
- Bukhmanizer 9y ago
  It's much closer to arguing that homosexuality is wrong because biological reproduction supports only heterosexual relationships.
  - blusterXY 9y ago
    There is strong scientific evidence of at least a partial genetic/prenatal basis for homosexual expression. If this were a discussion on that topic, the writer would be pointing this out and criticizing discriminatory policies that adversely affect homosexuals.
    - Bukhmanizer 9y ago
      You've missed the point. The point is that just because you've pointed out a biological fact doesn't mean that you can extend that to societal truths. Cancer also has a genetic basis. Does that mean we should stop researching how to cure it? The point is that arguing over how Homosexuality is like or unlike Cancer is completely pointless and irrelevant to the wider conversation. Likewise, biological arguments are irrelevant to the overall conversation about diversity in tech. And I'm speaking as someone who thinks that there are a lot of flaws with the current attempts to solve these problems. I think diversity policies are often misguided and lead to suboptimal solutions. But I think this is a hard problem, and there are not going to be any easy solutions. The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution. All it does is draw lines between us and them and give newspapers a bunch of trash to print.
      - blusterXY 9y ago
        > The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution This is not what the writer says. > I think... there are not going to be any easy solutions. The article suggests a number of non-discriminatory solutions Google could easily implement.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: I think if you want your argument to be more convincing, it would be nice to spend less effort on trying to brand the opponents "climate change denier", which sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on a tribal thought-terminating cliche - basically a highbrow structural equivalent of calling someone a Nazi - if you're in any way like a Nazi, you can't win an argument, whatever the argument is about, because that would mean being a Nazi is good, and we all agree it can't be true! Addressing the argument directly instead of trying to affix the killer label is what should distinguish a reasoned rational discussion from a televised political debate. > but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc. There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument. You have many good points here, you don't have to boost them with irrational appeals to tribal cliches (even if you assume everybody is in the same tribe as you, it's still not rational argument). Pleading the rational arguments is better than pounding the table.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument. I took it as an argument by analogy. A more analytical approach like listing logical errors and fallacies wouldn't go over well either. I'm curious how someone else would phrase those points without neutering them.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      If you see the specific fallacy, you can just point out the fallacy, you don't have to affix label like "you're just like $outgroup!". Mentioning $outgroup doesn't add anything to a rational argument. However, it frequently (though, of course, not always) betrays the weakness of the rational part and the desire to plug the hole by the emotional part.
- comex 9y ago
  No. If anything it is the equivalent of writing: “The major weakness of the paper isn’t that there are studies showing a natural variability in Earth temperatures over time, but it doesn’t convincingly argue why that variability is the cause of recent sharp temperature increases.” Well, the grammar of the sentence doesn’t really make sense (even in the original), but you get the point. Intrinsic gender differences exist, like natural temperature changes exist. But in both cases, they do not explain all or even most of the observed variation; the rest is caused by society.
therebedragons 9y ago
> but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested. This is the most honest critique I have seen, and that speaks to the audience far more than the author. I agree 100% with you on the unconvincing nature, and that TERRIFIES me. I don't think the argument was convincing either, where I'd wager we differ is that I think that is because the audience just wasn't ready for the argument. That is clear in every strawmanning of a word like "empathy", of the emotional responses and the complete denial that there is any science supporting his claims - and I know this hyperbole is rhetoric, but consider this direct quote form the rebuttal "... and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades". ALL research for DECADES. All of it. DECADES. That a PhD in biology from Harvard is willfully ignorant of ALL the research FOR DECADES seems... unlikely? When someone can make a calm, rational, thought out argument and be yelled out and mocked with no evidence he has the science wrong or even, heaven forbid, that his counter-proposals are less likely to help, what is left? When no attempt was made to meet the author even 10% of the way, and consider he has some supporting evidence, how CAN one make a convincing argument? Will every argument use confirmation bias pandering to pre-existing ideals? I fear this is the moment when we lose the ability to convince with reason, or facts, or evidence, and begin a scary world on in-group biases and walled off intellectual forts immune to new ideas or even being challenged.

by nowo 9y ago

blusterXY 9y ago

What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: "The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy." The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a certain point, people are either educated or ignorant. And ignorance may be bliss, but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc.

andkon 9y ago
You totally missed the point. So here it is again: even if all the research he cites is real and well-supported, he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites. There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science. There's also no support for his conclusion that Google therefore doesn't have an obligation to improve diversity measures (which, as a normative claim, can't be negated by citing scientific research). And above all, there's zero support for his positive claim that Google has a real obligation to adopt a definition of diversity that benefits him and not women, nor that Google has an obligation to defend and make accommodations for his (abhorrent) opinions.
- blusterXY 9y ago
  Thank you for your (abhorrent) attempt at belittling someone who is trying to educate you about what is actually mainstream science: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812017168 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201... As for the rest of your comment, it perfectly illustrates my comment above about critics having no clue what this guy is saying. At the very minimum, you are dead wrong to claim the author does not say that diversity is important and that Google should not address it. He simply says it should be addressed in non-discriminatory ways, something any sensible reader should have noticed had they read the ENTIRE SECTION he included titled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". And with that, I'm jumping out of this discussion: it pollutes the HN discussion section to have to repeatedly state what the article under discussion actually says.
  - comex 9y ago
    The parent’s comment, which you claim is “abhorrent” and ignoring science, states: > There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science. Please explain where in either of your sources it says that women should be underrepresented in STEM and computer science - at all (why not the other way around?), let alone to anywhere near the extent seen today. Hint: nowhere. Getting to there from personality quizzes is the unsubstantiated logical leap the parent was talking about.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites Where does he do that? If I recall correctly, he mostly wanted to discuss the company culture. There were policies that were mentioned, but only to support his position that the company culture was supported by company policy.
Bukhmanizer 9y ago
It's much closer to arguing that homosexuality is wrong because biological reproduction supports only heterosexual relationships.
- blusterXY 9y ago
  There is strong scientific evidence of at least a partial genetic/prenatal basis for homosexual expression. If this were a discussion on that topic, the writer would be pointing this out and criticizing discriminatory policies that adversely affect homosexuals.
  - Bukhmanizer 9y ago
    You've missed the point. The point is that just because you've pointed out a biological fact doesn't mean that you can extend that to societal truths. Cancer also has a genetic basis. Does that mean we should stop researching how to cure it? The point is that arguing over how Homosexuality is like or unlike Cancer is completely pointless and irrelevant to the wider conversation. Likewise, biological arguments are irrelevant to the overall conversation about diversity in tech. And I'm speaking as someone who thinks that there are a lot of flaws with the current attempts to solve these problems. I think diversity policies are often misguided and lead to suboptimal solutions. But I think this is a hard problem, and there are not going to be any easy solutions. The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution. All it does is draw lines between us and them and give newspapers a bunch of trash to print.
    - blusterXY 9y ago
      > The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution This is not what the writer says. > I think... there are not going to be any easy solutions. The article suggests a number of non-discriminatory solutions Google could easily implement.
smsm42 9y ago
> What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: I think if you want your argument to be more convincing, it would be nice to spend less effort on trying to brand the opponents "climate change denier", which sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on a tribal thought-terminating cliche - basically a highbrow structural equivalent of calling someone a Nazi - if you're in any way like a Nazi, you can't win an argument, whatever the argument is about, because that would mean being a Nazi is good, and we all agree it can't be true! Addressing the argument directly instead of trying to affix the killer label is what should distinguish a reasoned rational discussion from a televised political debate. > but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc. There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument. You have many good points here, you don't have to boost them with irrational appeals to tribal cliches (even if you assume everybody is in the same tribe as you, it's still not rational argument). Pleading the rational arguments is better than pounding the table.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument. I took it as an argument by analogy. A more analytical approach like listing logical errors and fallacies wouldn't go over well either. I'm curious how someone else would phrase those points without neutering them.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    If you see the specific fallacy, you can just point out the fallacy, you don't have to affix label like "you're just like $outgroup!". Mentioning $outgroup doesn't add anything to a rational argument. However, it frequently (though, of course, not always) betrays the weakness of the rational part and the desire to plug the hole by the emotional part.
comex 9y ago
No. If anything it is the equivalent of writing: “The major weakness of the paper isn’t that there are studies showing a natural variability in Earth temperatures over time, but it doesn’t convincingly argue why that variability is the cause of recent sharp temperature increases.” Well, the grammar of the sentence doesn’t really make sense (even in the original), but you get the point. Intrinsic gender differences exist, like natural temperature changes exist. But in both cases, they do not explain all or even most of the observed variation; the rest is caused by society.

therebedragons 9y ago

> but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested. This is the most honest critique I have seen, and that speaks to the audience far more than the author. I agree 100% with you on the unconvincing nature, and that TERRIFIES me. I don't think the argument was convincing either, where I'd wager we differ is that I think that is because the audience just wasn't ready for the argument. That is clear in every strawmanning of a word like "empathy", of the emotional responses and the complete denial that there is any science supporting his claims - and I know this hyperbole is rhetoric, but consider this direct quote form the rebuttal "... and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades". ALL research for DECADES. All of it. DECADES. That a PhD in biology from Harvard is willfully ignorant of ALL the research FOR DECADES seems... unlikely? When someone can make a calm, rational, thought out argument and be yelled out and mocked with no evidence he has the science wrong or even, heaven forbid, that his counter-proposals are less likely to help, what is left? When no attempt was made to meet the author even 10% of the way, and consider he has some supporting evidence, how CAN one make a convincing argument? Will every argument use confirmation bias pandering to pre-existing ideals? I fear this is the moment when we lose the ability to convince with reason, or facts, or evidence, and begin a scary world on in-group biases and walled off intellectual forts immune to new ideas or even being challenged.