5 ms·

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through feminist theory "papers" or the related "scholarly papers" about how the tech world is obviously sexist/mi

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through feminist theory "papers" or the related "scholarly papers" about how the tech world is obviously sexist/misogynistic/racist/bigoted/etc. You said that Damore's view was held as wrong as by the "majority view". Where is the "majority view" point by point rebuttal of Damore's memo? Give me that and I will listen.

pron 9y ago
I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care about this subject or you don't. And if you do, I hope you have the scientific curiosity to actually learn about it, and only then shape your opinions. Thankfully, after decades of study and action, we no longer need to convince the world that germs exist — the world now knows. So we no longer need you to listen; we have critical mass. You wish to remain spitefully ignorant? Be my guest. My comments are intended to those who are interested in learning, not to those who say, "thank you, but I'd rather take the word of some schmoe who knows nothing about the the subject he so vehemently writes about than spend some time actually learning about it from those who have". I will, however, say this: Damore’s email is deeply misguided regardless of the merit of the couple of papers he cites (and must have run across in some conservative blog, as that is the extent of his real interest in the issue). It is basically a memo written by the owner of a chemical plant who dumps radioactive waste in a river, and claims that the pollution should not be stopped in spite of an increased incidence of cancer in the area by citing some papers showing that not all cancer is a result of exposure to radioactive waste. And don’t worry, there's no need to learn any feminist theory; just some sociology and history, even at Wikipedia level. Anyway, I don't know why you put the word papers in scare quotes, as I don't think you have any idea as to what feminist theory is, and I don’t understand how you can ridicule something without even knowing what it is that you ridicule (I guess you’re basing your disdain on connotations you have of the name and maybe writings by others who have similarly not bothered to find out what feminist theory is before writing against it). And the fact that you, again, confuse sexist/racist with misogynistic/bigoted, shows that you don't even understand what the issue is, and instead wish to ridicule some strawman position that you imagine your imagined opponents possess.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Read “The Blank Slate”. Read/watch the Pinker/Spelke debate. Etc. The science here is pretty unambiguous, yes, just not in the direction you think.
  - pron 9y ago
    Oh, I have, because unlike you, I actually did study this subject seriously for some years.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      And your take-away was obviously to copy the tactics he described in the book: ignore the actual science and the actual arguments put forward, because you know those show you to be clearly in the wrong. Instead, weave around the facts, do advocacy and sell it as science, vilify your opponents etc.
      - pron 9y ago
        Quite the opposite, in fact. And I don't know what you base your opinions on, because clearly, you know so little about the subject, having read no more than a couple of popular, very one-sided books. I find it mind-boggling how someone can read just one side of a debate and believe that they "debunked" the other side. But I'm guessing you probably also read Joy Christian's book and believe that that Bell's theorem has been "thoroughly debunked", and that those who contest that notion ignore the "actual science" and "actual arguments", and "vilify" Christian in some crazy emotional witch-hunt. I hope you realize, however, that it is those who least have the fact on their side, yet constantly demand to be acknowledged, who claim that there's some witch-hunt against them, and that the reason they are not taken as seriously as they think they should be is because people are afraid of the truth. The main problem with Pinker, BTW, is not at all the merit of his claims about biological inclination, but that none of that has anything to do with the undisputed, completely noncontroversial, and far better established fact that women have been socially marginalized from positions of power for centuries. Like in my allegory of the polluting plant, even if there are indeed other causes for cancer, that has very little to do with the demand that the plant stop dumping chemical waste in the river. Waving science supporting the claim that there are other causes for cancer as an excuse to continue polluting shows a very basic misunderstanding of the issue. My goal is not to prove that there are no innate psychological differences between men and women; it is to end the marginalization of women that no doubt exists, regardless of whether or not those innate differences are real (what's funny is that even those who believe they are real, don't notice that the effect size they claim to find doesn't even come close to explaining the situation on the ground, nor that it is constantly changing).

pron 9y ago

I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care about this subject or you don't. And if you do, I hope you have the scientific curiosity to actually learn about it, and only then shape your opinions. Thankfully, after decades of study and action, we no longer need to convince the world that germs exist — the world now knows. So we no longer need you to listen; we have critical mass. You wish to remain spitefully ignorant? Be my guest. My comments are intended to those who are interested in learning, not to those who say, "thank you, but I'd rather take the word of some schmoe who knows nothing about the the subject he so vehemently writes about than spend some time actually learning about it from those who have". I will, however, say this: Damore’s email is deeply misguided regardless of the merit of the couple of papers he cites (and must have run across in some conservative blog, as that is the extent of his real interest in the issue). It is basically a memo written by the owner of a chemical plant who dumps radioactive waste in a river, and claims that the pollution should not be stopped in spite of an increased incidence of cancer in the area by citing some papers showing that not all cancer is a result of exposure to radioactive waste. And don’t worry, there's no need to learn any feminist theory; just some sociology and history, even at Wikipedia level. Anyway, I don't know why you put the word papers in scare quotes, as I don't think you have any idea as to what feminist theory is, and I don’t understand how you can ridicule something without even knowing what it is that you ridicule (I guess you’re basing your disdain on connotations you have of the name and maybe writings by others who have similarly not bothered to find out what feminist theory is before writing against it). And the fact that you, again, confuse sexist/racist with misogynistic/bigoted, shows that you don't even understand what the issue is, and instead wish to ridicule some strawman position that you imagine your imagined opponents possess.

mpweiher 9y ago
Read “The Blank Slate”. Read/watch the Pinker/Spelke debate. Etc. The science here is pretty unambiguous, yes, just not in the direction you think.
- pron 9y ago
  Oh, I have, because unlike you, I actually did study this subject seriously for some years.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    And your take-away was obviously to copy the tactics he described in the book: ignore the actual science and the actual arguments put forward, because you know those show you to be clearly in the wrong. Instead, weave around the facts, do advocacy and sell it as science, vilify your opponents etc.
    - pron 9y ago
      Quite the opposite, in fact. And I don't know what you base your opinions on, because clearly, you know so little about the subject, having read no more than a couple of popular, very one-sided books. I find it mind-boggling how someone can read just one side of a debate and believe that they "debunked" the other side. But I'm guessing you probably also read Joy Christian's book and believe that that Bell's theorem has been "thoroughly debunked", and that those who contest that notion ignore the "actual science" and "actual arguments", and "vilify" Christian in some crazy emotional witch-hunt. I hope you realize, however, that it is those who least have the fact on their side, yet constantly demand to be acknowledged, who claim that there's some witch-hunt against them, and that the reason they are not taken as seriously as they think they should be is because people are afraid of the truth. The main problem with Pinker, BTW, is not at all the merit of his claims about biological inclination, but that none of that has anything to do with the undisputed, completely noncontroversial, and far better established fact that women have been socially marginalized from positions of power for centuries. Like in my allegory of the polluting plant, even if there are indeed other causes for cancer, that has very little to do with the demand that the plant stop dumping chemical waste in the river. Waving science supporting the claim that there are other causes for cancer as an excuse to continue polluting shows a very basic misunderstanding of the issue. My goal is not to prove that there are no innate psychological differences between men and women; it is to end the marginalization of women that no doubt exists, regardless of whether or not those innate differences are real (what's funny is that even those who believe they are real, don't notice that the effect size they claim to find doesn't even come close to explaining the situation on the ground, nor that it is constantly changing).