4 ms·

It seems disingenuous not to mention the many debunkings of the memo's Science by Scientists. For example: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about

by zellyn 9y ago

It seems disingenuous not to mention the many debunkings of the memo's Science by Scientists. For example: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

nzjrs 9y ago
By my estimation there is about 7 layers of recursive debunkings so far. How many times you recurse before breaking out seems to depend most strongly on your initial starting biases.
- zellyn 9y ago
  Yes. Exactly. The editorial mentions only agreement from Scientists.
- thomasahle 9y ago
  If the refutals are serious, you should be able to eventually find some underlying, simpler disagreement, or some experiment that needs to be done. If we give up, and break the recursion early, we get tribalism.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I've also read several supporting takes by scientists in related fields as well. The statements Damore made are indeed supported by some studies, and science being science, there are studies which conflict it as well. Pretending 'science' supports one political view or another is the sort of thing that got us in this mess in the first place. I think if we're going to avoid being disingenuous, we need to recognize that there is not a widely accepted consensus on this topic.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  I tend to take "supported by" to mean "there is support for it" not "everything supports it". I would use "confirmed" to describe the latter. (and yes, nothing is ever absolutely confirmed, bit were talking about everyday language here)
- zellyn 9y ago
  > Pretending 'science' supports one political view or another is the sort of thing that got us in this mess in the first place. I agree. That's my point. The editorial mentions only Scientists who agree with Damore's Science, which paints an inaccurate picture.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Ah, that's fair. I didn't adequately read the context in your original comment. EDIT: (As a note, I love clarifying comments, and wish rate limiting on HN didn't force me to pick and choose where I do so. I definitely misread the original, and downvoted it, but after seeing the clarification, and re-reading, I changed my vote on the original to an upvote, as well as upvoting the clarifying comment. Sometimes I feel like the HN lean against an extended discussion between two parties can be a detriment.)
thomasahle 9y ago
This is by far the best reply to the memo I have seen. I wish more replies were like this. I fear some people in the left and center don't want to honor the memo with a serious reply, and that this gets picked up by the right as inability to do so.
godd2 9y ago
The disingenuous debunkings? > The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda. He must be a sneaky alt-righter! How else could he disagree with me?

by zellyn 9y ago

nzjrs 9y ago

By my estimation there is about 7 layers of recursive debunkings so far. How many times you recurse before breaking out seems to depend most strongly on your initial starting biases.

zellyn 9y ago
Yes. Exactly. The editorial mentions only agreement from Scientists.
thomasahle 9y ago
If the refutals are serious, you should be able to eventually find some underlying, simpler disagreement, or some experiment that needs to be done. If we give up, and break the recursion early, we get tribalism.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I've also read several supporting takes by scientists in related fields as well. The statements Damore made are indeed supported by some studies, and science being science, there are studies which conflict it as well. Pretending 'science' supports one political view or another is the sort of thing that got us in this mess in the first place. I think if we're going to avoid being disingenuous, we need to recognize that there is not a widely accepted consensus on this topic.

jamesrcole 9y ago
I tend to take "supported by" to mean "there is support for it" not "everything supports it". I would use "confirmed" to describe the latter. (and yes, nothing is ever absolutely confirmed, bit were talking about everyday language here)
zellyn 9y ago
> Pretending 'science' supports one political view or another is the sort of thing that got us in this mess in the first place. I agree. That's my point. The editorial mentions only Scientists who agree with Damore's Science, which paints an inaccurate picture.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Ah, that's fair. I didn't adequately read the context in your original comment. EDIT: (As a note, I love clarifying comments, and wish rate limiting on HN didn't force me to pick and choose where I do so. I definitely misread the original, and downvoted it, but after seeing the clarification, and re-reading, I changed my vote on the original to an upvote, as well as upvoting the clarifying comment. Sometimes I feel like the HN lean against an extended discussion between two parties can be a detriment.)

thomasahle 9y ago

This is by far the best reply to the memo I have seen. I wish more replies were like this. I fear some people in the left and center don't want to honor the memo with a serious reply, and that this gets picked up by the right as inability to do so.

godd2 9y ago

The disingenuous debunkings? > The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda. He must be a sneaky alt-righter! How else could he disagree with me?