4 ms·

You, sir/madam, seem to enjoy making illogical claims. First you link worthless bragging in attempt to prove that a peer-reviewed scientific study is "deeply fl

You, sir/madam, seem to enjoy making illogical claims. First you link worthless bragging in attempt to prove that a peer-reviewed scientific study is "deeply flawed". Now you proceed to claim that I "never really wanted to understand sexism" because I question these sources and that I "will go with my opinions no matter what". Ironically enough, based on the above evidence, the last statement likely applies to you.

wpietri 9y ago
Ok, Mr. Evidence. Prove me wrong. List the books on sexism that you've read, with brief summaries. Show me your college transcript with the courses you took. I'll add that I have evidence for my assumption that dudes are biased when evaluating material about sexism. Aside from my 20 years of experience talking with dudes in tech about tech's gender bias, there's also a study showing this effect: https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on... So let's see your data.
- kirillkh 9y ago
  I don't need to be an expert on sexism to make judgments on it. This is one benefit we get from science: it allows one to make accurate judgments without becoming an expert. If one had to be an expert to make any judgment at all, one would never be able to leave their house. Of course, some disclaimers apply. Any conclusions you draw based on a study have to stay faithful to its constraints. And you have to keep in mind that some fields are more trustworthy than others. E.g., so-called 'social sciences' seem to be as much overrun by extreme-left fanatics as the 'progressive' mass media, which is evident in ignoring obvious control factors (e.g. taking into account marital status and number of children reverses results on sex bias [1]) and in publication bias [2]. Also, it's you who needs to prove something wrong, since it's you who doubts a scientific study. And please stop linking news articles, I'm no longer entertained to learn more ways in which the mass media spins the Damore story. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
  - urbanj 9y ago
    Ok, you can fuck off back to Reddit, you ignorant cunt.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Ah, right. You are so brilliant that you don't need to study anything. You can just know that most of a field is bunk because you perceive the practitioners as "extreme-left fanatics". Fake science! You also get to ignore any article about scientific research (even if it is written by a scientist) because of those darned politically biased journalists. Fake news! You have constructed a nice, comfortable political bubble for yourself. One you're only willing to talk about under cover of anonymity. This could be because you are the true lone genius you see yourself as. Or it could be because you are picking and choosing anything that you find politically inconvenient. Perhaps, as a genius, you can guess which one I'm thinking here.
    - kirillkh 9y ago
      It's funny how you try to spin this around and claim that it's me who lives in an echo chamber, not the extreme-leftist mass media and SJW 'science'. So it's okay from your point of view that major news outlets, such as Bloomberg TV, switch into propaganda mode and start making anti-factual claims, such as 'there is no research to support the idea that there are biological causes for the lack of women in tech' [1]. It might be too much to expect commercial media to be objective, but outright fabricating facts is nothing less than betrayal of everything journalism stands for. Is that a singular case of leftist propaganda? Far from it. If you took a look at Google News the week this story was hot, you'd see your run-of-the-mill articles that open by twisting facts in the title. E.g., 'Anti-diversity manifesto' was apparently considered a mild way to describe it [2]. Some of them proceeded to make false claims, e.g. that Damore was "criticizing the company’s efforts to increase diversity" (no he was not, he considers diversity a good thing and suggests better ways to increase it) or arguing that Google "should stop offering programs to minorities and women" (he was only discussing racist and sexist programs, not _all_ programs) [3]. As to 'fake news' - I take it you're trying to paint me as a Trump supporter. So let me tell you I'm not one, and I didn't even know what that was all about (as I never bothered with US mainstream media before) before it hit me where it hurts with the Damore story. Now I don't know how much pro-Trump media twisted facts, maybe it was the same. All I know is I was shocked to find the mainstream US media to be so ideologically charged as to attack a guy for his [very mild and well-substantiated] opinions with forged facts and labels. Because I know that guy could have been me. In summary, you, together with the mainstream US culture, need to pop your own obvious, well-documented and plainly visible ideological bubble before you start making claims that people with true liberal, pro-science, pluralistic views like myself are in one. [1] https://youtu.be/s4WoeOkj2Ng?t=2m1s https://youtu.be/s4WoeOkj2Ng?t=2m1s [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/5/16101978/google-employee-wrote-anti-diversity-manifesto https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/5/16101978/google-employee-w... [3] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/google-fires-employee-who-wrote-10-page-anti-diversity-manifesto https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/google-fires-employe...

wpietri 9y ago

Ok, Mr. Evidence. Prove me wrong. List the books on sexism that you've read, with brief summaries. Show me your college transcript with the courses you took. I'll add that I have evidence for my assumption that dudes are biased when evaluating material about sexism. Aside from my 20 years of experience talking with dudes in tech about tech's gender bias, there's also a study showing this effect: https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on... So let's see your data.

kirillkh 9y ago
I don't need to be an expert on sexism to make judgments on it. This is one benefit we get from science: it allows one to make accurate judgments without becoming an expert. If one had to be an expert to make any judgment at all, one would never be able to leave their house. Of course, some disclaimers apply. Any conclusions you draw based on a study have to stay faithful to its constraints. And you have to keep in mind that some fields are more trustworthy than others. E.g., so-called 'social sciences' seem to be as much overrun by extreme-left fanatics as the 'progressive' mass media, which is evident in ignoring obvious control factors (e.g. taking into account marital status and number of children reverses results on sex bias [1]) and in publication bias [2]. Also, it's you who needs to prove something wrong, since it's you who doubts a scientific study. And please stop linking news articles, I'm no longer entertained to learn more ways in which the mass media spins the Damore story. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
- urbanj 9y ago
  Ok, you can fuck off back to Reddit, you ignorant cunt.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Ah, right. You are so brilliant that you don't need to study anything. You can just know that most of a field is bunk because you perceive the practitioners as "extreme-left fanatics". Fake science! You also get to ignore any article about scientific research (even if it is written by a scientist) because of those darned politically biased journalists. Fake news! You have constructed a nice, comfortable political bubble for yourself. One you're only willing to talk about under cover of anonymity. This could be because you are the true lone genius you see yourself as. Or it could be because you are picking and choosing anything that you find politically inconvenient. Perhaps, as a genius, you can guess which one I'm thinking here.
  - kirillkh 9y ago
    It's funny how you try to spin this around and claim that it's me who lives in an echo chamber, not the extreme-leftist mass media and SJW 'science'. So it's okay from your point of view that major news outlets, such as Bloomberg TV, switch into propaganda mode and start making anti-factual claims, such as 'there is no research to support the idea that there are biological causes for the lack of women in tech' [1]. It might be too much to expect commercial media to be objective, but outright fabricating facts is nothing less than betrayal of everything journalism stands for. Is that a singular case of leftist propaganda? Far from it. If you took a look at Google News the week this story was hot, you'd see your run-of-the-mill articles that open by twisting facts in the title. E.g., 'Anti-diversity manifesto' was apparently considered a mild way to describe it [2]. Some of them proceeded to make false claims, e.g. that Damore was "criticizing the company’s efforts to increase diversity" (no he was not, he considers diversity a good thing and suggests better ways to increase it) or arguing that Google "should stop offering programs to minorities and women" (he was only discussing racist and sexist programs, not _all_ programs) [3]. As to 'fake news' - I take it you're trying to paint me as a Trump supporter. So let me tell you I'm not one, and I didn't even know what that was all about (as I never bothered with US mainstream media before) before it hit me where it hurts with the Damore story. Now I don't know how much pro-Trump media twisted facts, maybe it was the same. All I know is I was shocked to find the mainstream US media to be so ideologically charged as to attack a guy for his [very mild and well-substantiated] opinions with forged facts and labels. Because I know that guy could have been me. In summary, you, together with the mainstream US culture, need to pop your own obvious, well-documented and plainly visible ideological bubble before you start making claims that people with true liberal, pro-science, pluralistic views like myself are in one. [1] https://youtu.be/s4WoeOkj2Ng?t=2m1s https://youtu.be/s4WoeOkj2Ng?t=2m1s [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/5/16101978/google-employee-wrote-anti-diversity-manifesto https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/5/16101978/google-employee-w... [3] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/google-fires-employee-who-wrote-10-page-anti-diversity-manifesto https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/google-fires-employe...