10 ms·

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... http://slatestarcodex.com/

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

pron 9y ago
Both are conservative publications, which is fine, but: There are certainly some researchers, like those in the first article, who agree with Damore's position, but they are by far the minority; if you're interested in the subject, I suggest you at least read some research written by the majority opinion. The second link is written by a non-expert, and therefore does not constitute a scholarly opinion at all. I occasionally enjoy reading some of Alexander's writing, but he is clearly not a serious social scholar, and his writing suffers from some obvious methodological problems that have been well covered in social scholarship.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3389 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3389 Scott Aaronson considers it to be valid. Being conservative doesn't negate its arguments.
  - pron 9y ago
    Scott Aaronson is not an expert on this matter, either, and, as far as I know, he hasn’t even seriously studied the subject as an amateur. I didn’t say that being conservative negates the argument in the first article (and the second is irrelevant regardless of Alexander’s conservatism); I just pointed it out to note that the publication picked scientists who reflect their views rather than attempted to neutrally present the current state of affairs in the relevant social scholarship.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      > I just pointed it out to note that the publication picked scientists who reflect their views rather than attempted to neutrally present the current state of affairs in the relevant social scholarship. In stark contrast to liberal publications who never do that. /s
      - pron 9y ago
        In stark contrast to scholarly treatment, which, even if biased, at least attempts to address different perspectives.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  > I suggest you at least read some research written by the majority opinion. Little bit difficult when all those articles scream sexist, but sure, links please.
  - pron 9y ago
    Again, your reaction to the word sexism suggests you may be confusing it with misogyny, but anyway, here are some starting points, and you can follow the references from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) (pretty much a prerequisite to understanding any social research) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  The other thing that makes it difficult is the extreme strawmanning and misrepresentation. The Wired article says that Schmitt disagrees. "How this all fits into the Google workplace is unclear to me. But perhaps it does." They cut off the "But perhaps it does" and simply state "So even the researcher he cites disagrees".
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Hmm...where is this "majority opinion"? So far I haven't seen a single article opposing him that didn't (have to) resort to crass misrepresentation of what he actually wrote, when it even bothered at all. If you have to lie about your opponent, you're probably not in the right.
  - pron 9y ago
    He's not an opponent; he's just some random guy on the internet, who, by his own admission, has no idea what he's talking about, because he writes about a subject he has not studied nor shown interest in studying. Many of the people arguing against him or for him are other random guys on the internet, and your entire opinion on this very important matter, which has occupied hundreds of researchers for decades and affects the lives of many people is based on some online debates you've read between various random guys on the internet. Do you see how ridiculous this is? It's like forming an opinion about Bell's theorem by listening to debates among fourth-graders who've heard the term "quantum mechanics" on Rick and Morty. He's famous only because his office shenanigans caused such a massive PR shitstorm for his employer, that the CEO of Google had to cut short his family vacation to deal with the mess this low-level employee had caused.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      Okay, I'll bite. Give me links to the "majority opinion".
      - pron 9y ago
        Haven't read it, but this was the very first hit on Google Scholar: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf Seems like a review with a lot of relevant references.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Okay, that's a general study, not a direct refutation of what the Damore memo said.
- naasking 9y ago
  > There are certainly some researchers, like those in the first article, who agree with Damore's position, but they are by far the minority; This is a pretty wild claim. I'm not aware of any surveys or polls of social scientists on these topics, the way we've done surveys on, for instance, climate change. How could you possibly know what proportion of social scientists accept any given proposition? If you have a link to such a survey, I'd love to see it. Also, calling those sites "conservative" is grossly inaccurate. You're just trying to spin the evidence they present as biased.
  - pron 9y ago
    > How could you possibly know what proportion of social scientists accept any given proposition? Umm, because I studied history in grad school for a few years? It's not "any given proposition", but the well-accepted, long-ago-established fact that social policy has marginalized women from positions of power for centuries, and continues to do so (although to a lesser extent, due to political action). > If you have a link to such a survey, I'd love to see it. But you don't really. That information is available within minutes on Wikipedia and Google Scholar. If you were truly interested in the consensus opinion, you would have found it by now. If you're too lazy, I've posted some links on this page for the sake of others who care so deeply about this issue yet couldn't be bothered to read the Wikipedia page on sexism or the top hit on Google Scholar for women in tech. > Also, calling those sites "conservative" is grossly inaccurate. OK, now I know you're joking.
    - naasking 9y ago
      Number of citations on Google scholar says nothing about the quality of that scholarship, and so says nothing about how many social scientists accept any given position. And your study of history is hardly relevant to the status of these topics now, at best, you might be able to claim that you knew what the prevailing opinion was at some point. So basically you have nothing, which is what I figured.
      - pron 9y ago
        Dude, do you really think that I thought there was any chance you would have a different conclusion out of this discussion? See, you're already dismissing studies that you haven't even bothered to look at, and still haven't even read the most basic Wikipedia pages on the topic. Actually, "I" have mountains of incontrovertible evidence, which, like Dawkins's fossils, are available for all to see. The only reason you can still doubt this is if you don't want to learn the subject, and there is absolutely nothing I say that can make you interested at this point.

pron 9y ago

Both are conservative publications, which is fine, but: There are certainly some researchers, like those in the first article, who agree with Damore's position, but they are by far the minority; if you're interested in the subject, I suggest you at least read some research written by the majority opinion. The second link is written by a non-expert, and therefore does not constitute a scholarly opinion at all. I occasionally enjoy reading some of Alexander's writing, but he is clearly not a serious social scholar, and his writing suffers from some obvious methodological problems that have been well covered in social scholarship.

deepnotderp 9y ago
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3389 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3389 Scott Aaronson considers it to be valid. Being conservative doesn't negate its arguments.
- pron 9y ago
  Scott Aaronson is not an expert on this matter, either, and, as far as I know, he hasn’t even seriously studied the subject as an amateur. I didn’t say that being conservative negates the argument in the first article (and the second is irrelevant regardless of Alexander’s conservatism); I just pointed it out to note that the publication picked scientists who reflect their views rather than attempted to neutrally present the current state of affairs in the relevant social scholarship.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    > I just pointed it out to note that the publication picked scientists who reflect their views rather than attempted to neutrally present the current state of affairs in the relevant social scholarship. In stark contrast to liberal publications who never do that. /s
    - pron 9y ago
      In stark contrast to scholarly treatment, which, even if biased, at least attempts to address different perspectives.
deepnotderp 9y ago
> I suggest you at least read some research written by the majority opinion. Little bit difficult when all those articles scream sexist, but sure, links please.
- pron 9y ago
  Again, your reaction to the word sexism suggests you may be confusing it with misogyny, but anyway, here are some starting points, and you can follow the references from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) (pretty much a prerequisite to understanding any social research) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
deepnotderp 9y ago
The other thing that makes it difficult is the extreme strawmanning and misrepresentation. The Wired article says that Schmitt disagrees. "How this all fits into the Google workplace is unclear to me. But perhaps it does." They cut off the "But perhaps it does" and simply state "So even the researcher he cites disagrees".
mpweiher 9y ago
Hmm...where is this "majority opinion"? So far I haven't seen a single article opposing him that didn't (have to) resort to crass misrepresentation of what he actually wrote, when it even bothered at all. If you have to lie about your opponent, you're probably not in the right.
- pron 9y ago
  He's not an opponent; he's just some random guy on the internet, who, by his own admission, has no idea what he's talking about, because he writes about a subject he has not studied nor shown interest in studying. Many of the people arguing against him or for him are other random guys on the internet, and your entire opinion on this very important matter, which has occupied hundreds of researchers for decades and affects the lives of many people is based on some online debates you've read between various random guys on the internet. Do you see how ridiculous this is? It's like forming an opinion about Bell's theorem by listening to debates among fourth-graders who've heard the term "quantum mechanics" on Rick and Morty. He's famous only because his office shenanigans caused such a massive PR shitstorm for his employer, that the CEO of Google had to cut short his family vacation to deal with the mess this low-level employee had caused.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    Okay, I'll bite. Give me links to the "majority opinion".
    - pron 9y ago
      Haven't read it, but this was the very first hit on Google Scholar: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf Seems like a review with a lot of relevant references.
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        Okay, that's a general study, not a direct refutation of what the Damore memo said.
naasking 9y ago
> There are certainly some researchers, like those in the first article, who agree with Damore's position, but they are by far the minority; This is a pretty wild claim. I'm not aware of any surveys or polls of social scientists on these topics, the way we've done surveys on, for instance, climate change. How could you possibly know what proportion of social scientists accept any given proposition? If you have a link to such a survey, I'd love to see it. Also, calling those sites "conservative" is grossly inaccurate. You're just trying to spin the evidence they present as biased.
- pron 9y ago
  > How could you possibly know what proportion of social scientists accept any given proposition? Umm, because I studied history in grad school for a few years? It's not "any given proposition", but the well-accepted, long-ago-established fact that social policy has marginalized women from positions of power for centuries, and continues to do so (although to a lesser extent, due to political action). > If you have a link to such a survey, I'd love to see it. But you don't really. That information is available within minutes on Wikipedia and Google Scholar. If you were truly interested in the consensus opinion, you would have found it by now. If you're too lazy, I've posted some links on this page for the sake of others who care so deeply about this issue yet couldn't be bothered to read the Wikipedia page on sexism or the top hit on Google Scholar for women in tech. > Also, calling those sites "conservative" is grossly inaccurate. OK, now I know you're joking.
  - naasking 9y ago
    Number of citations on Google scholar says nothing about the quality of that scholarship, and so says nothing about how many social scientists accept any given position. And your study of history is hardly relevant to the status of these topics now, at best, you might be able to claim that you knew what the prevailing opinion was at some point. So basically you have nothing, which is what I figured.
    - pron 9y ago
      Dude, do you really think that I thought there was any chance you would have a different conclusion out of this discussion? See, you're already dismissing studies that you haven't even bothered to look at, and still haven't even read the most basic Wikipedia pages on the topic. Actually, "I" have mountains of incontrovertible evidence, which, like Dawkins's fossils, are available for all to see. The only reason you can still doubt this is if you don't want to learn the subject, and there is absolutely nothing I say that can make you interested at this point.