6 ms·

"He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more." This is spot on right here and the main difference betwee

"He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more." This is spot on right here and the main difference between the memo and this article. The memo might have cited real science but it arrived at grossly inappropriate conclusions.

Jabanga 9y ago
This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the power of the group perceived as being at the top of the social dominance hierarchy.
- foolrush 9y ago
  You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.
  - highfiveui 9y ago
    Is science not about finding the truth above all else?
    - foolrush 9y ago
      The search for truth is fundamentally epistemological. There is a fascinating dive into just what science is, when it began, etc. One might disagree with his language, but this post is remarkably insightful to begin such a dive: http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steven-pinker-is-a-total-ignoramus-who http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steve...
    - kthejoker2 9y ago
      Mm .... Maybe? Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the most relevant writing on this.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368
    - foolrush 9y ago
      Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
        foolrush 9y ago
        Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
        9y ago
- clavalle 9y ago
  The author of the memo framed his argument in exactly this way. To quote the memo: "As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" The author literally thinks 'Left' policies are part of a Communist power struggle. If the above comment is toxic, then so is the original memo.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    No, postmodernism and feminism are rooted in Marxist ideology. Marxist intellectuals shifted to postmodernism in the 1970s after it became impossible to deny that Marxist doctrine had led to authoritarian police states and democides all over the world. Postmodern ideology changes Marxism's fixation on capital with a fixation on power, and replaces income-class with race/gender/income-class identity groups. It's extremely similar to Marxism in its perspective, goals and methods. The evolution of postmodern ideology is well-documented and so his claim can be validated. Even the reaction to the memo validates the memo author's claims, as it shows the dogmatic, sexist/racist and hateful nature of postmodern/feminist ideology. With respect to the ideological foundation of postmodern/feminist ideology: the fact that one fifth of social scientists in today's universities identify as adherents of Marxism - an ideology as murderous as Nazism - is a testament to its prevalence in academia, and the malevolent nihilism animating postmodern/feminist ideology.
    - clavalle 9y ago
      And here I thought I was just a capitalist who believes that people should all be given an equal shot to choose their own path in life and that how things have been does not necessarily dictate how things should be. Turns out I'm a hateful, dogmatic, sexist racist as well as a malevolent nihilist, postmodern feminist, and a Marxist to boot. Thanks for clearing that up. Those -isms really snuck up on me (they really are an insidious bunch, aren't they?). Good thing there are people out there that know way more about people's position and why they have them than they do themselves. Otherwise, we may have to picture the world we want to live in and work toward it without thought to all of the pseudo-cruft attached to specific iterations of ideas throughout history in various places and times by specific individuals that some people might highlight and promote as The One Truth of an Idea to further their own political agenda. It's all very obvious, now that you bring it up.
curiousgeorgio 9y ago
> it arrived at grossly inappropriate conclusions Which conclusions were inappropriate, specifically? The memo I read made several suggestions that would only help women in tech. If that's "inappropriate", then it proves his broader point: our biggest diversity problem is really the lack of diversity of thought. If any of the conclusions are wrong, then no amount of shouting or complaining should be necessary; just refute the basis of those conclusions using facts rather than feelings.
- omikun 9y ago
  You must have missed the parts in the end where he advocated measures that systemically undermined diversity measures (let's not make this a moral issue, have less empathy, be more rational). While all of those arguments make sense individually, together they take down any diversity in thought: left side brain good, right side brain bad. What we need more in this discussion is more emotional intelligence, not less.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    > left side brain good, right side brain bad We're programmers/engineers, not painters/artists. Hence I don't see where that statement doesn't hold absolutely true for us. (Except perhaps for management, team leads and entrepreneurs.)
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      This is how you end up with a convoluted technical solution that takes a month to program, instead of just talking to the business to adjust the requirement and turn it into a couple hours of work.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      My friend, engineering's primary purpose is empathic in nature. Have a quick look at new pursuits such as: http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy_101.cfm http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy... https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html I could discuss this at length because it's a subject that really interests me, and I'm severely biased because I started out in the humanities with my main pursuit being an understanding of the human condition. I've brought those learnings with me into my current software engineering career and it's serving me well. Simple being able to place yourself in the shoes of an end user, rather than dictating to them what they necessarily have to learn (and even better, when you know they should learn something with improved understanding of how to implement such a feature) saves everybody a lot of time and frustration. Your estimates will improve in accuracy as well. You'll see less scope-creep. It's especially important in critical-systems work. Plus I consider it a bit of a boon to someones character if they care about what they're putting into the world. Most people do. Hint: it won't inhibit your technical understanding.
humanrebar 9y ago
> inappropriate conclusions "Inappropriate conclusions" resembles "thought crimes" applied to a corporate/social context. I'm fine if people think his conclusions are "incorrect", "garbage", "shoddy", "poorly argued", "unsubstantiated", and a whole host of other adjectives. These are all responses that can be part of a discussion, even a healthy one in the right context. But "inappropriate" is a lot more puritanical. It implies the thoughts are unwelcome and should be shunned (or worse). It implies that the appropriate response isn't reason-based but power-based. Some power is social (shunning, blacklists, twitter shaming) and some is corporate (HR training, formal reprimands, notes in files, demotions, firings).

Jabanga 9y ago

This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the power of the group perceived as being at the top of the social dominance hierarchy.

foolrush 9y ago
You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.
- highfiveui 9y ago
  Is science not about finding the truth above all else?
  - foolrush 9y ago
    The search for truth is fundamentally epistemological. There is a fascinating dive into just what science is, when it began, etc. One might disagree with his language, but this post is remarkably insightful to begin such a dive: http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steven-pinker-is-a-total-ignoramus-who http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steve...
  - kthejoker2 9y ago
    Mm .... Maybe? Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the most relevant writing on this.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368
  - foolrush 9y ago
    Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
      - foolrush 9y ago
        Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
        9y ago
clavalle 9y ago
The author of the memo framed his argument in exactly this way. To quote the memo: "As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" The author literally thinks 'Left' policies are part of a Communist power struggle. If the above comment is toxic, then so is the original memo.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  No, postmodernism and feminism are rooted in Marxist ideology. Marxist intellectuals shifted to postmodernism in the 1970s after it became impossible to deny that Marxist doctrine had led to authoritarian police states and democides all over the world. Postmodern ideology changes Marxism's fixation on capital with a fixation on power, and replaces income-class with race/gender/income-class identity groups. It's extremely similar to Marxism in its perspective, goals and methods. The evolution of postmodern ideology is well-documented and so his claim can be validated. Even the reaction to the memo validates the memo author's claims, as it shows the dogmatic, sexist/racist and hateful nature of postmodern/feminist ideology. With respect to the ideological foundation of postmodern/feminist ideology: the fact that one fifth of social scientists in today's universities identify as adherents of Marxism - an ideology as murderous as Nazism - is a testament to its prevalence in academia, and the malevolent nihilism animating postmodern/feminist ideology.
  - clavalle 9y ago
    And here I thought I was just a capitalist who believes that people should all be given an equal shot to choose their own path in life and that how things have been does not necessarily dictate how things should be. Turns out I'm a hateful, dogmatic, sexist racist as well as a malevolent nihilist, postmodern feminist, and a Marxist to boot. Thanks for clearing that up. Those -isms really snuck up on me (they really are an insidious bunch, aren't they?). Good thing there are people out there that know way more about people's position and why they have them than they do themselves. Otherwise, we may have to picture the world we want to live in and work toward it without thought to all of the pseudo-cruft attached to specific iterations of ideas throughout history in various places and times by specific individuals that some people might highlight and promote as The One Truth of an Idea to further their own political agenda. It's all very obvious, now that you bring it up.

curiousgeorgio 9y ago

> it arrived at grossly inappropriate conclusions Which conclusions were inappropriate, specifically? The memo I read made several suggestions that would only help women in tech. If that's "inappropriate", then it proves his broader point: our biggest diversity problem is really the lack of diversity of thought. If any of the conclusions are wrong, then no amount of shouting or complaining should be necessary; just refute the basis of those conclusions using facts rather than feelings.

omikun 9y ago
You must have missed the parts in the end where he advocated measures that systemically undermined diversity measures (let's not make this a moral issue, have less empathy, be more rational). While all of those arguments make sense individually, together they take down any diversity in thought: left side brain good, right side brain bad. What we need more in this discussion is more emotional intelligence, not less.
- mmirate 9y ago
  > left side brain good, right side brain bad We're programmers/engineers, not painters/artists. Hence I don't see where that statement doesn't hold absolutely true for us. (Except perhaps for management, team leads and entrepreneurs.)
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    This is how you end up with a convoluted technical solution that takes a month to program, instead of just talking to the business to adjust the requirement and turn it into a couple hours of work.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    My friend, engineering's primary purpose is empathic in nature. Have a quick look at new pursuits such as: http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy_101.cfm http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy... https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html I could discuss this at length because it's a subject that really interests me, and I'm severely biased because I started out in the humanities with my main pursuit being an understanding of the human condition. I've brought those learnings with me into my current software engineering career and it's serving me well. Simple being able to place yourself in the shoes of an end user, rather than dictating to them what they necessarily have to learn (and even better, when you know they should learn something with improved understanding of how to implement such a feature) saves everybody a lot of time and frustration. Your estimates will improve in accuracy as well. You'll see less scope-creep. It's especially important in critical-systems work. Plus I consider it a bit of a boon to someones character if they care about what they're putting into the world. Most people do. Hint: it won't inhibit your technical understanding.

humanrebar 9y ago

> inappropriate conclusions "Inappropriate conclusions" resembles "thought crimes" applied to a corporate/social context. I'm fine if people think his conclusions are "incorrect", "garbage", "shoddy", "poorly argued", "unsubstantiated", and a whole host of other adjectives. These are all responses that can be part of a discussion, even a healthy one in the right context. But "inappropriate" is a lot more puritanical. It implies the thoughts are unwelcome and should be shunned (or worse). It implies that the appropriate response isn't reason-based but power-based. Some power is social (shunning, blacklists, twitter shaming) and some is corporate (HR training, formal reprimands, notes in files, demotions, firings).