5 ms·

> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docu

> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

wfunction 9y ago
Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original. People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
- kuschku 9y ago
  - dqv 9y ago
    The only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    First of all, he had far better references than random WordPress blog posts, and second of all, that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse you from providing an accurate representation of the original.
noncoml 9y ago
I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. > ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). A bit further down: > Men’s higher drive for status > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Holy crap! - Edit below this line - This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping. As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
- onli 9y ago
  The very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?
  - noncoml 9y ago
    OK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
    - onli 9y ago
      You're welcome :) If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes. I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
Aqua 9y ago
So the media are manipulating content of the document in order to provoke their readers. This is outrageous, I feel sorry for the guy. Freedom of speech is threatened by obssesive political correctness that silences unpopular points of view.
sidlls 9y ago
Those references are actually the opposite of helpful to his case. And, in fact, as a biologist he ought to know better than to apply the generalizations he refers to to specific populations or individuals.
- phinnaeus 9y ago
  Isn't the article basically all about how we should avoid applying generalizations to specific individuals?
- jshevek 9y ago
  He explicitly didn't apply the generalizations in this way. This is a lie invented by a half dozen or more media outlets.
milcron 9y ago
His "references" are mostly Wikipedia links. I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
- leereeves 9y ago
  I agree they weren't the best references available. I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
  - micahbright 9y ago
    It's weird, but this is all pretty well known stuff in the fields from which he refers. And, as obsessed as we are with instilling diversity in everything, why even common people don't know these things who knows?

wfunction 9y ago

Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original. People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.

kuschku 9y ago
- dqv 9y ago
  The only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
- wfunction 9y ago
  First of all, he had far better references than random WordPress blog posts, and second of all, that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse you from providing an accurate representation of the original.

noncoml 9y ago

I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. > ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). A bit further down: > Men’s higher drive for status > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Holy crap! - Edit below this line - This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping. As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.

onli 9y ago
The very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?
- noncoml 9y ago
  OK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
  - onli 9y ago
    You're welcome :) If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes. I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.

Aqua 9y ago

So the media are manipulating content of the document in order to provoke their readers. This is outrageous, I feel sorry for the guy. Freedom of speech is threatened by obssesive political correctness that silences unpopular points of view.

sidlls 9y ago

Those references are actually the opposite of helpful to his case. And, in fact, as a biologist he ought to know better than to apply the generalizations he refers to to specific populations or individuals.

phinnaeus 9y ago
Isn't the article basically all about how we should avoid applying generalizations to specific individuals?
jshevek 9y ago
He explicitly didn't apply the generalizations in this way. This is a lie invented by a half dozen or more media outlets.

milcron 9y ago

His "references" are mostly Wikipedia links. I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.

leereeves 9y ago
I agree they weren't the best references available. I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
- micahbright 9y ago
  It's weird, but this is all pretty well known stuff in the fields from which he refers. And, as obsessed as we are with instilling diversity in everything, why even common people don't know these things who knows?