4 ms·

This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic. It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate. I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men c

This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic. It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate. I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks. That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006
- iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
  I'm not convinced that is the case. Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject. Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject! These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Practicing the basics of diplomatic discussion is not about changing minds.
    - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
      What is the intended outcome?
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        Emergent patterns don't begin with a stated goal. They begin with seeds and fertile ground and existing need. You look back on it later and see from whence it arose.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggesting that the potential of women in tech is up for debate. Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out. Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief. It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his. Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19. When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions. Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges. I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us. Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
I'm not convinced that is the case. Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject. Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject! These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Practicing the basics of diplomatic discussion is not about changing minds.
  - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
    What is the intended outcome?
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      Emergent patterns don't begin with a stated goal. They begin with seeds and fertile ground and existing need. You look back on it later and see from whence it arose.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggesting that the potential of women in tech is up for debate. Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out. Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief. It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his. Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19. When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions. Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges. I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us. Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.