4 ms·

> cites exactly one supporting scientific study I counted 10 supporting scientific studies, and a whole bunch of other articles that all included lots of refer

by Lon7 9y ago

> cites exactly one supporting scientific study I counted 10 supporting scientific studies, and a whole bunch of other articles that all included lots of references. > thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?) I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. She quotes what he wrote, and then shows why he is wrong, over and over again. She doesn't juke around the issue at all.

j9461701 9y ago
>I counted 10 supporting scientific studies An impressive feat. Mind sharing them? And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. And also not links to Business Insider articles, Wikipedia articles, blogs, Amazon, or anything of the sort. You are aware you can't just make stuff up when I've read the article and examined its links right? >I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. You don't see how quoting a person, and then playing free association with their words to conclude they're some kind of crypto fascist fog Whistler is kind of ridiculous?
- Lon7 9y ago
  > And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. You've already admitted that you are not qualified to judge what is accurate in this context, so why do you think you can now decide that some of the studies are nonsense? All of these studies support arguments she was making. In reverse order of appearance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003293 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna... http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.pdf http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.p... https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(16)00070-7 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-...
  - j9461701 9y ago
    To be clear: If that quora post had been a dispassionate refutation, or even just a nest of links to directly pertinent scientific studies - I'd have believed the author. Or at least declared myself neutral in the debate, as it is outside my area of expertise. But an article that sleazy and loaded with weasel words and underhanded rhetorical tactics, that dances that much around the points being discussed - no one who has the facts on their side argues like that. Reading that post from beginning to end actually did more to convince me Damore was right than any other piece of writing I've seen thus far on the subject. As to your links: Read what you're trying to cite before blinding citing it. Here is some of the titles of the papers you just linked to: No relationship between prenatal androgen exposure and autistic traits The origins of agriculture: Population growth during a period of declining health Human Health and the Neolithic Revolution: an Overview of Impacts of the Agricultural Transition on Oral Health, Epidemiology, and the Human Body Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women Cuckolded Fathers Rare in Human Populations As I said, basically pure none sense. The quora post is trying to blindside people with number of sources, to hide the fact they have absolutely no quality in sources. Indeed, even the most directly pertinent link didn't really talk about the core issues raised in the memo. It instead discussed github pull requests vs. gender, which while far more related to the subject at hand than autistic dentistry (it is about sexism and the tech community), does not actually address the specific points raised by Damore's letter or support the arguments she was trying to make. Incidentally, that study is nicely debunked here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-exci...
    - Lon7 9y ago
      Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine. No argument there. The author has a problem with James' interpretation of the science, and his speculation and arguments he makes based on this flawed interpretation. You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever. As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary. In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic. Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant. The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc. I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.

by Lon7 9y ago

j9461701 9y ago

>I counted 10 supporting scientific studies An impressive feat. Mind sharing them? And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. And also not links to Business Insider articles, Wikipedia articles, blogs, Amazon, or anything of the sort. You are aware you can't just make stuff up when I've read the article and examined its links right? >I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. You don't see how quoting a person, and then playing free association with their words to conclude they're some kind of crypto fascist fog Whistler is kind of ridiculous?

Lon7 9y ago
> And again, direct support - not "mating practices of birds" or "fetal hormone influence and autism" or other none sense. You've already admitted that you are not qualified to judge what is accurate in this context, so why do you think you can now decide that some of the studies are nonsense? All of these studies support arguments she was making. In reverse order of appearance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003293 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna... http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.pdf http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.p... https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(16)00070-7 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-...
- j9461701 9y ago
  To be clear: If that quora post had been a dispassionate refutation, or even just a nest of links to directly pertinent scientific studies - I'd have believed the author. Or at least declared myself neutral in the debate, as it is outside my area of expertise. But an article that sleazy and loaded with weasel words and underhanded rhetorical tactics, that dances that much around the points being discussed - no one who has the facts on their side argues like that. Reading that post from beginning to end actually did more to convince me Damore was right than any other piece of writing I've seen thus far on the subject. As to your links: Read what you're trying to cite before blinding citing it. Here is some of the titles of the papers you just linked to: No relationship between prenatal androgen exposure and autistic traits The origins of agriculture: Population growth during a period of declining health Human Health and the Neolithic Revolution: an Overview of Impacts of the Agricultural Transition on Oral Health, Epidemiology, and the Human Body Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women Cuckolded Fathers Rare in Human Populations As I said, basically pure none sense. The quora post is trying to blindside people with number of sources, to hide the fact they have absolutely no quality in sources. Indeed, even the most directly pertinent link didn't really talk about the core issues raised in the memo. It instead discussed github pull requests vs. gender, which while far more related to the subject at hand than autistic dentistry (it is about sexism and the tech community), does not actually address the specific points raised by Damore's letter or support the arguments she was trying to make. Incidentally, that study is nicely debunked here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-exci...
  - Lon7 9y ago
    Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine. No argument there. The author has a problem with James' interpretation of the science, and his speculation and arguments he makes based on this flawed interpretation. You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever. As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary. In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic. Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant. The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc. I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.