4 ms·

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 substantiat

by 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.

by andkon 9y ago

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.