6 ms·

> Or they completely stop taking you seriously. You take yourself really seriously, for someone defending the modern equivalent of phrenology.

mistermann 9y ago
What is this referring to?
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  You try to dismiss my obvious analogy with "the biological argument" made by racists, but fail to see the glaring equivalence Damone is making between purported biological characteristics and outcomes in STEM fields. Phrenology tried to use physical traits to determine behavior, this is not very different.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Except I didn't do that? I was merely pointing out how silly you are being. > "we shouldn't do anything to increase diversity, because women are biologically different and hence they won't be interested." This is not the argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > This is not the argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this So what is the argument?
      - mistermann 9y ago
        At least: in the aggregate, there are easily observable differences between men and women, and that computer science and engineering schools produce way more male graduates than female. If 80% of candidates were left handed, no one would think twice about 80% of hires being left handed. Ditto for female candidates. Ditto again for male candidates for relatively undesireable jobs. But once the topic of discussion is male candidates for highly paid jobs, the logic completely changes. Pretend this isn't happening as much as you like, it's no skin off my nose.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        > At least: in the aggregate, there are easily observable differences between men and women, and that computer science and engineering schools produce way more male graduates than female. And yet, that has changed over time, implying that there's definitely a big non-biological component to the ratio. > If 80% of candidates were left handed Right, because a biological characteristic that literally doesn't have any effect in professional careers is exactly comparable to a biological characteristic you say does make a difference. Talk about comparing apples with "things I say are an orange, but let's pretend I'm saying are an apple for me to draw this completely irrelevant analogy." > it's no skin off my nose. Of course it is not, and that's why you can be so blasé about the whole thing.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > And yet, that has changed over time, implying that there's definitely a big non-biological component to the ratio. Which OP and I are not denying. Such a simple logical error I would almost expect among the civilian population, it's odd when software professionals on HN seem to completely loose their logical faculties when certain topics are discussed. > Right, because.... See above comment.

mistermann 9y ago

What is this referring to?

dguaraglia 9y ago
You try to dismiss my obvious analogy with "the biological argument" made by racists, but fail to see the glaring equivalence Damone is making between purported biological characteristics and outcomes in STEM fields. Phrenology tried to use physical traits to determine behavior, this is not very different.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Except I didn't do that? I was merely pointing out how silly you are being. > "we shouldn't do anything to increase diversity, because women are biologically different and hence they won't be interested." This is not the argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > This is not the argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this So what is the argument?
    - mistermann 9y ago
      At least: in the aggregate, there are easily observable differences between men and women, and that computer science and engineering schools produce way more male graduates than female. If 80% of candidates were left handed, no one would think twice about 80% of hires being left handed. Ditto for female candidates. Ditto again for male candidates for relatively undesireable jobs. But once the topic of discussion is male candidates for highly paid jobs, the logic completely changes. Pretend this isn't happening as much as you like, it's no skin off my nose.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        > At least: in the aggregate, there are easily observable differences between men and women, and that computer science and engineering schools produce way more male graduates than female. And yet, that has changed over time, implying that there's definitely a big non-biological component to the ratio. > If 80% of candidates were left handed Right, because a biological characteristic that literally doesn't have any effect in professional careers is exactly comparable to a biological characteristic you say does make a difference. Talk about comparing apples with "things I say are an orange, but let's pretend I'm saying are an apple for me to draw this completely irrelevant analogy." > it's no skin off my nose. Of course it is not, and that's why you can be so blasé about the whole thing.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > And yet, that has changed over time, implying that there's definitely a big non-biological component to the ratio. Which OP and I are not denying. Such a simple logical error I would almost expect among the civilian population, it's odd when software professionals on HN seem to completely loose their logical faculties when certain topics are discussed. > Right, because.... See above comment.