5 ms·

> He wrote about a subject he knows little about, didn't seriously research, and one that he actually doesn't seem too interested in studying at all He has a M

• pron 9y ago
  Oh, sorry; I've read his manifesto and didn't realize it was about systems biology. My impression was that it was about women in tech. Did he research social structures or even the psychological differences between the sexes?
  • imron 9y ago
    He did link to and summarise research on the psychological differences between the sexes - but it seems that this was the cause of quite a bit of the blowback because people didn't understand that this is what he was doing e.g. when he was talking about Neuroticism in the technical sense as one of the big 5 personality traits, and many people incorrectly interpreted that as him calling women neurotic. Also the links he provided that would have given this context were removed from quite a few of the online copies of the manifesto, causing further confusion.
    • pron 9y ago
      I saw the links. No expert on the actual matter at hand (women participation in tech) would consider them relevant at all to the issue.
      • jack9 9y ago
        > Did he research social structures or even the psychological differences between the sexes? > No expert on the actual matter at hand (women participation in tech) would consider them relevant at all to the issue. Your inability to maintain a frame of reference for your objections is disheartening. It's clear you're just entrenched in a win/lose mentality and have no interest in the topic at all.
        • pron 9y ago
          On the contrary. This is a subject I studied (although indirectly) at university, and that's why I could easily tell that the author of the manifesto is both ignorant and uninterested in the subject, which is why he quotes studies that are irrelevant even if their findings are representative. In other words, that he confuses the question of "natural inclination" with the problem of inclusion of women in tech shows that he has done no research on the subject at all.
          • jack9 9y ago
            > he has done no research on the subject at all. Except for the citations. > why I could easily tell that the author of the manifesto is both ignorant and uninterested in the subject Continuing to attack the credibility of a largely factual statement (the memo in question) is still not compelling. If there was evidence supporting opposing viewpoints, even hypothetically, you might want to lead with that in your interactions. Good luck with whatever you believe.
            • pron 9y ago
              I am not attacking the cited papers, just their relevance. He might as well have said, "we should not fight global warming because of special relativity". Special relativity may be true, but if you think it relates to global warming, then you have done no research on global warming, as you clearly don't understand the problem. That he thinks that innate differences in interest between the sexes relates to the problem of including women in tech that is trying to be addressed by various "diversity" measures, shows that he doesn't understand what the problem is.
              • aangjie 9y ago
                As long as you don't explain why you think it is not relevant, there'll not be much progress. You could argue for example the default should be to treat the two(representation of women in tech vs psychological gender differences) different and "burden of proof" should be on the side arguing they're same. I think that's not obvious to me(and probably a lot of others).