7 ms·

Can someone help me understand how we've equivocated factually wrong things with dissenting opinion? If I said all human beings were born with 8 fingers and 6

Can someone help me understand how we've equivocated factually wrong things with dissenting opinion? If I said all human beings were born with 8 fingers and 6 toes and am dismissed from my biology class for it, was it because I had a dissenting opinion?

beaconstudios 9y ago
what factually wrong statements did James Damore make? [edit] I'm genuinely asking, I've not seen a source for the original memo so all I've heard is second-hand info.
- throwanem 9y ago
  He conflated group and individual variability, for one thing. It's a common mistake on all sides of the debate, and not by any means limited to this context; indeed, one of the more pernicious legacies of the Progressive Era's early attempts at social science and engineering is the mistaken idea that statistical inferences about whatever group convey information about the individual human being sitting across a table from you.
  - abnry 9y ago
    If you read his essay he absolutely did not conflate group and individual variability.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      I'll put my hand up to not having read the whole thing; this is a fairly busy week for me, and I don't expect to find the time soon. That's totally on me; on the other hand, I'm getting the basis of my prior statement via Frederik deBoer, whom I've found to be very meticulous in such matters, and so I've been willing to assume its accuracy despite unfamiliarity with the primary source. It sounds like you have read the whole thing, though. Would you mind calling out some relevant quotes, so that I can get a better sense of his points on the subject, and retract my earlier statement should it prove unfactual? Thanks!
      - abnry 9y ago
        Check out part of his conclusion here: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/894768062682980353 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/894768062682980353
        throwanem 9y ago
        I fear I may have done the man a disservice.
        abnry 9y ago
        Unfortunately, as long as you have a bit of an open mind, it's not your fault. The media deliberately misrepresented what he wrote.
        throwanem 9y ago
        Yeah, but the point I'm making is that on the one hand, I know to account for that, and on the other, I expected better of deBoer. That by me is the really galling part - despite that he's still deeply committed to the progressive ideology, he's struck me as a generally accurate observer and honest reporter until now. I'm both surprised and disappointed to discover he is not reliably so, and that I'll henceforth have to source and backcheck him with the same care I'm accustomed to using everywhere else. Which is fine, but...I don't know. I suppose I have a hope or two pinned on the guy possibly being open to the kind of good-faith-on-both-sides reconciliation that's going to have to start somewhere if there's to be a chance of resolving the current political polarization in a marginally civilized way. In particular, his recent comments on the subject of academic ostracism of political dissent, and how that's a terrible idea both ethically and pragmatically, have given me a strongly favorable impression - and since he's a lecturer at CUNY, that he should say such things seems to me to count for a considerable deal more than when a mouthy unlettered redneck such as myself, for example, does so. I don't know. Maybe he just slipped, too - he's on vacation this week, so perhaps he just didn't look into the matter as closely as he should've, same as I didn't. But it's a little discouraging all the same.
      - 9y ago
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    OK, I agree that would be a mistake in that if you are a member of group X which predicts some variable Y at higher or lower on average than the general population, then any one individual in group X cannot be assumed to be at position +/-Y relative to the general population (apologies for the bad explanation, I don't know the relevant statistical terminology). What did he say to suggest this? Seems to me like he just said 50/50 gender parity in engineering is unlikely due to differing propensities for it amongst men and women. Not that women engineers were less capable.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    > He conflated group and individual variability, for one thing. Check out this graph from the paper: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGsHRXlXcAARj6E.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGsHRXlXcAARj6E.jpg Frankly it is one of the more concise and effective presentations of this point I have seen. It had been removed from what Gizmodo originally published.

beaconstudios 9y ago

what factually wrong statements did James Damore make? [edit] I'm genuinely asking, I've not seen a source for the original memo so all I've heard is second-hand info.

throwanem 9y ago
He conflated group and individual variability, for one thing. It's a common mistake on all sides of the debate, and not by any means limited to this context; indeed, one of the more pernicious legacies of the Progressive Era's early attempts at social science and engineering is the mistaken idea that statistical inferences about whatever group convey information about the individual human being sitting across a table from you.
- abnry 9y ago
  If you read his essay he absolutely did not conflate group and individual variability.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    I'll put my hand up to not having read the whole thing; this is a fairly busy week for me, and I don't expect to find the time soon. That's totally on me; on the other hand, I'm getting the basis of my prior statement via Frederik deBoer, whom I've found to be very meticulous in such matters, and so I've been willing to assume its accuracy despite unfamiliarity with the primary source. It sounds like you have read the whole thing, though. Would you mind calling out some relevant quotes, so that I can get a better sense of his points on the subject, and retract my earlier statement should it prove unfactual? Thanks!
    - abnry 9y ago
      Check out part of his conclusion here: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/894768062682980353 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/894768062682980353
      - throwanem 9y ago
        I fear I may have done the man a disservice.
        abnry 9y ago
        Unfortunately, as long as you have a bit of an open mind, it's not your fault. The media deliberately misrepresented what he wrote.
        throwanem 9y ago
        Yeah, but the point I'm making is that on the one hand, I know to account for that, and on the other, I expected better of deBoer. That by me is the really galling part - despite that he's still deeply committed to the progressive ideology, he's struck me as a generally accurate observer and honest reporter until now. I'm both surprised and disappointed to discover he is not reliably so, and that I'll henceforth have to source and backcheck him with the same care I'm accustomed to using everywhere else. Which is fine, but...I don't know. I suppose I have a hope or two pinned on the guy possibly being open to the kind of good-faith-on-both-sides reconciliation that's going to have to start somewhere if there's to be a chance of resolving the current political polarization in a marginally civilized way. In particular, his recent comments on the subject of academic ostracism of political dissent, and how that's a terrible idea both ethically and pragmatically, have given me a strongly favorable impression - and since he's a lecturer at CUNY, that he should say such things seems to me to count for a considerable deal more than when a mouthy unlettered redneck such as myself, for example, does so. I don't know. Maybe he just slipped, too - he's on vacation this week, so perhaps he just didn't look into the matter as closely as he should've, same as I didn't. But it's a little discouraging all the same.
    - 9y ago
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  OK, I agree that would be a mistake in that if you are a member of group X which predicts some variable Y at higher or lower on average than the general population, then any one individual in group X cannot be assumed to be at position +/-Y relative to the general population (apologies for the bad explanation, I don't know the relevant statistical terminology). What did he say to suggest this? Seems to me like he just said 50/50 gender parity in engineering is unlikely due to differing propensities for it amongst men and women. Not that women engineers were less capable.
- Goladus 9y ago
  > He conflated group and individual variability, for one thing. Check out this graph from the paper: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGsHRXlXcAARj6E.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGsHRXlXcAARj6E.jpg Frankly it is one of the more concise and effective presentations of this point I have seen. It had been removed from what Gizmodo originally published.