3 ms·

You touched on an interesting point: it's pretty well-known that in startup circles being a woman is, generally speaking, a net negative. The reason I spoke u

You touched on an interesting point: it's pretty well-known that in startup circles being a woman is, generally speaking, a net negative. The reason I spoke up originally is because where I'm located, it's very common to believe the exact opposite. It's become something of a trope: "Better respect women or the thought police will get you!" (said in a dismissive tone) I don't know if I'm just living in a weird area, but that seems to be the default sentiment across the last N companies I've worked for. It's either treated as a joke or not discussed. And then of course there are pockets of people with the exact opposite feelings, but they often go so far in the other direction that it's hard to take them seriously. There's some space between being completely dismissive and hyperventilating about women being oppressed, and I thought the latter was a myth until I saw it in practice. So it's just really hard to figure out, y'know? It's not something that we generally get to talk about. It's socially weird to bring it up with strangers or publicly, so you're very likely to believe whatever the people around you happen to believe. So how do you determine whether your beliefs reflect reality?

dvt 9y ago
> The reason I spoke up originally is because where I'm located, it's very common to believe the exact opposite. It's become something of a trope: "Better respect women or the thought police will get you!" (said in a dismissive tone) I think this is a reactionary counter-attack by the hardline anti-SJW crowd. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in complete agreement with the ultra-(socially-)liberal SJW gamergate-style movements; however, if we're not lying to ourselves, it's fairly obvious being a woman in tech is not great. So you have nutty guys like Google's Damore who actually believe exactly what you're saying: that men are somehow being discriminated against because the powers that be are trying to slightly tip the scales in favor of women. Which is completely crazy to begin with, given that if you're an engineer at a tech company, you're already making like ~$100k+ which puts you in the top ~10% of US earners. > So it's just really hard to figure out, y'know? It's not something that we generally get to talk about. It's socially weird to bring it up with strangers or publicly, so you're very likely to believe whatever the people around you happen to believe. So how do you determine whether your beliefs reflect reality? This is a hard question and don't really have any answers. I studied philosophy in college and we talked about all kinds of controversial issues (abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, etc.) My theory is that most engineers just aren't mentally equipped with the tools required to make sound social judgments, e.g. being well-read in ethics or social theory, so debates or a friendly clash of ideas often end up being fruitless and awkward.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  This is a hard question and don't really have any answers. I studied philosophy in college and we talked about all kinds of controversial issues (abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, etc.) My theory is that most engineers just aren't mentally equipped with the tools required to make sound social judgments, e.g. being well-read in ethics or social theory, so debates or a friendly clash of ideas often end up being fruitless and awkward. This is an interesting observation. A lot of flamewars could be as simple as that. If one were inclined to equip themselves, what would you do? It's very rare to have the opportunity to attend a philosophy class, and a lot of philosophy students tend to take it much too seriously. It's serious topics, but almost everyone who studies philosophy ends up feeling elevated over those who don't. This is remarkably ineffective when trying to persuade people to your way of thinking. So I'm interested in what to study for my own purposes, and then try to integrate those concepts into my day to day life. What would you recommend?
  - dvt 9y ago
    I went into my Philosophy major wanting to study mostly logic and math. But I actually fell in love with ethics, a topic I had never been interested in before. I think most of these social issues find their roots in ethics, so if you're interested in that this would be my suggestion: start off with Plato's Republic[1], move on to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics[2] and then Christian philosophers (Aquinas[3], for example) and then (my favorite) John Stewart Mill. I often suggest his On Liberty[4] on HN. It's one of the absolute best primers to modern social ethics around. I don't think Kant is particularly useful (or interesting), but many would disagree, so your mileage may vary. As far as the "modern" era, I suggest reading G.E. Moore[4], Elizabeth Anscombe[5], Phillipa Foot[6], etc.) Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy[7] is one of my favorite essays ever. Apart from that, it's important to read Supreme Court cases and decisions (especially important ones: Bakke v. UC Regents, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc, etc.) But most importantly (and what we were vehemently taught), is to always practice the Principle of Charity[8]. Some of these books and essays are very hard to parse, but there is a lot of material online that will help figure out their meaning. [1] http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html [2] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/ [4] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/ [6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot [8] http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

dvt 9y ago

> The reason I spoke up originally is because where I'm located, it's very common to believe the exact opposite. It's become something of a trope: "Better respect women or the thought police will get you!" (said in a dismissive tone) I think this is a reactionary counter-attack by the hardline anti-SJW crowd. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in complete agreement with the ultra-(socially-)liberal SJW gamergate-style movements; however, if we're not lying to ourselves, it's fairly obvious being a woman in tech is not great. So you have nutty guys like Google's Damore who actually believe exactly what you're saying: that men are somehow being discriminated against because the powers that be are trying to slightly tip the scales in favor of women. Which is completely crazy to begin with, given that if you're an engineer at a tech company, you're already making like ~$100k+ which puts you in the top ~10% of US earners. > So it's just really hard to figure out, y'know? It's not something that we generally get to talk about. It's socially weird to bring it up with strangers or publicly, so you're very likely to believe whatever the people around you happen to believe. So how do you determine whether your beliefs reflect reality? This is a hard question and don't really have any answers. I studied philosophy in college and we talked about all kinds of controversial issues (abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, etc.) My theory is that most engineers just aren't mentally equipped with the tools required to make sound social judgments, e.g. being well-read in ethics or social theory, so debates or a friendly clash of ideas often end up being fruitless and awkward.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
This is a hard question and don't really have any answers. I studied philosophy in college and we talked about all kinds of controversial issues (abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, etc.) My theory is that most engineers just aren't mentally equipped with the tools required to make sound social judgments, e.g. being well-read in ethics or social theory, so debates or a friendly clash of ideas often end up being fruitless and awkward. This is an interesting observation. A lot of flamewars could be as simple as that. If one were inclined to equip themselves, what would you do? It's very rare to have the opportunity to attend a philosophy class, and a lot of philosophy students tend to take it much too seriously. It's serious topics, but almost everyone who studies philosophy ends up feeling elevated over those who don't. This is remarkably ineffective when trying to persuade people to your way of thinking. So I'm interested in what to study for my own purposes, and then try to integrate those concepts into my day to day life. What would you recommend?
- dvt 9y ago
  I went into my Philosophy major wanting to study mostly logic and math. But I actually fell in love with ethics, a topic I had never been interested in before. I think most of these social issues find their roots in ethics, so if you're interested in that this would be my suggestion: start off with Plato's Republic[1], move on to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics[2] and then Christian philosophers (Aquinas[3], for example) and then (my favorite) John Stewart Mill. I often suggest his On Liberty[4] on HN. It's one of the absolute best primers to modern social ethics around. I don't think Kant is particularly useful (or interesting), but many would disagree, so your mileage may vary. As far as the "modern" era, I suggest reading G.E. Moore[4], Elizabeth Anscombe[5], Phillipa Foot[6], etc.) Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy[7] is one of my favorite essays ever. Apart from that, it's important to read Supreme Court cases and decisions (especially important ones: Bakke v. UC Regents, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc, etc.) But most importantly (and what we were vehemently taught), is to always practice the Principle of Charity[8]. Some of these books and essays are very hard to parse, but there is a lot of material online that will help figure out their meaning. [1] http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html [2] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/ [4] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/ [6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot [8] http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity